I'll reply to this, but I know David and others aren't interested, so, guys, feel free to ignore it, 'k?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:36:29PM -0500, Andy Goth wrote: > Since everybody has a different opinion, I think it would make sense to set up > the mail server so that people can choose whether or not they want Reply-To > fields tacked onto emails they receive. This should make everybody (except > the admin, heh) happy. > > Then only remaining debate would be what should be the default. Existing > users should be set to Reply-To mode until they tell the server otherwise. > > As for new users, the subscribe page should have a checkbox (by default > checked) enabling Reply-To fields. If there is also an email-only way to > subscribe (I don't know), it should by default enable Reply-To, and the > subscription confirmation message should explain the issues and how to change > the Reply-To setting. > > Rationale: My observations indicate that it's mostly people with longtime > experience who complain about Reply-To, so these people should be capable of > follow simple instructions to change their account settings. I'm not sure this will help, Andy: it's precisely those people who will complain because of their knowledge who *don't* need it. It's the *newbies*, who've never been on a list before, and don't realize that they need to look, who are the problem. This is, I think, one of the very rare circumstances where it doesn't really much matter if you supply the knob -- there is no good default. The reason for which, of course, is that one setting of the knob solves one problem, and the other a related, but quite different problem. <argument category=inflammatory> It is, alas, much akin to the argument between the anti-abortion camp and the pro-abortion camp. Oh, I mean the pro-life camp and the anti-life camp. You see the problem: one side is "pro-abortion-*rights*", and the other side is "pro-life". Two almost completely different topics, tied together by a common base subject. Same thing here. Hitler! Godwin! </argument> > It doesn't matter much to me if someone actually implements this suggestion. > If it happens, I'll turn off Reply-To's for mails sent to me. If it doesn't > happen, I won't complain. It may be a little ugly, but I know how to use my > mua to send to the original poster despite Reply-To's setting, so long as > he/she didn't have to set Reply-To in the first place. And your MUA likely has enough *control* to let you deal appropriately, which ties into the "won't help the pros" argument above. > Yeah, I know I said I wouldn't reply, but I think that maybe, just maybe, the > above might lead to a resolution nearly everybody can (grudgingly?) live > with. Hmmm... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 OS X: Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows -- Simon Slavin, on a.f.c _______________________________________________ XFree86 mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xfree86
