On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 09:02:34AM -0800, Todd A. Jacobs wrote: ... > question typically comes down to which is the lesser evil in any given > situation. > > I find that, when dealing with newbies or non-technical folks, Reply-To > is important because otherwise they throw up their hands in clueless > frustration. But technical people should know better (and anyone using > Linux *ought* to be striving for more technical competence), and > *forcing* reply-to seems to go against the grain somehow. > > That said, it makes no difference to me whether I hit reply, list-reply, > or group-reply, so long as I *know* which one I'm supposed to key in. > So, the better question is: "Should RLUG support a munged reply-to > header? What goal would it advance?"
generating a lower volume of mail is a fine goal and a lesser evil, IMHO. another, more selfish/personal reason is, when it comes to surprises, I would rather be surprised that my email is being sent to fewer rather than more people than I expect. correcting the "too few" mistake is a lot easier to correct than the "too many" mistake. ya know? If I'm going to make a fool of myself, I would prefer to minimize the number of people who witness it. Another good argument I believe remember reading a few times, long ago, is that the Reply-To: header is intended for individual use. If that header is munged by a list then its intended purpose is made impossible. and... I believe there are other headers available (though not widely used/implemented) that are specifically designed for the functionality we're discussing. - Ben _______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
