I'm still not convinced. The fact that millions of people using
thousands of lists manage to cope successfully with Reply-to-list
indicates that it can't be TOO harmful. I have never used Elm and never
want to (though on reflection. I may have flirted with it back in 1979
or thereabouts). And the risk of sending one very occasional private
message to the list is more than offset by the inconvenience of having
to stop and think each time I DO want to send a message to the list.
If the SLUG list dealt with sensitive and personal material then I might
be swayed. But I've seen nothing posted there so far that my reply to
couldn't be broadcast to my mother or Senator Conroy with total impunity.
I see the decision as analogous to deciding to drive on the right side
of the road when everyone else is driving on the left. There's nothing
inherently wrong with it, but it causes a lot of inconvenience. To me,
anyway.
Jon.
On 29/07/10 18:48, Chris Deigan wrote:
On 27/07/2010, at 2:08 PM, Jon Jermey wrote:
I've been caught by that a few times, mainly because this is the only mailing
list I currently subscribe to (out of a dozen or so) that doesn't automatically
set the reply-to address to the list. I have a vague memory of this issue being
raised before, and I'm sure there were good reasons given why that was the
case. But I still find it really annoying. Is there any support for a re-think
on this?
http://www.slug.org.au/mailinglists.html#q9
-Chris.--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
