On Wednesday 01 June 2005 11:47 am, GSR - FR wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2005-06-01 at 1522.03 +0100):
> > > > This is intentional - google for "reply to considered harmful".
> > >
> > > This might have been of concern years ago, before people were used to
> > > mailing lists which do set the Reply-to header. Nowadays, I'd say that
> > > the opposite is true, since setting the Reply-to header seems common
> > > practice (at least if I look at the mailing lists I'm following, there
> > > are only 2 that don't set the header).
> >
> > The problem is still the same.
> > It is better to accidentally mail only one person and need to resend to
> > the list than it is to accidentally send mail to many people.
>
> After seeing this talk many times in many lists I think the issue is
> "dumb mail apps considered harmful".
>
> Instead of bringing up the thing about reply-to again and again, use
> mail apps that understand the concept of mailing list. Some apps had
> that feature for some time already so it must not be so hard to
> implement, and in some cases it could even be auto detected based in
> headers (wow, and solve the unsubscribe problem too when you are at
> it). If the app you like does not, fill a bug. I guess it will be
> easier than convicing every mailing list admin.
>
> When there is a button or function that is reply list and other reply
> person, how the list is set does not matter.
>
I agree 100%. I am using kmail and it handles mailing lists very nicely with
only a minimal effort to set it up. I am never confused about who I am
replying to. I am sure that there are other examples of email readers that
are mailing list smart.
Hal
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
