On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 04:24, Paul Smith wrote: > At 19:43 16/10/2003, Bernie Cosell wrote: > >On 16 Oct 2003 at 17:08, Paul Smith wrote: > > > > > At 16:44 16/10/2003, you wrote: > > > >I prefer the 'reply to sender' default rather than > > > >'reply to all'. ... > > > > > It really depends what you see the purpose of the list being. > > > > > > If replies only go back to the original message sender, then there are > > > quite a few disadvantages: > > > >The problem with this is that it presumes [by your use of 'only'] that the > >list > >membership is either entirely [or primarily] made of folk who cannot > >manage to > >do anything fancier/cleverer with their email clients than hit "reply". now, > >if you had said that "..._some_ replies will go back ...unintentionally..." > >that'd be closer to the fact, I think... > > I'm not too fussed either way - but I find it much more convenient to have > 'reply-to-list' > > (One of the things that REALLY annoys me is receiving duplicate emails - > you'll notice that if I reply to a list where I have to reply-all, then > I'll always edit the To/Cc fields so it only goes back to the list.)
Fix your email client, or use one that isn't broken. Tell others to do the same. My mail client doesn't do what you describe (I have a Reply-to-list button), and it can't figure out how to do "the right thing" if the mailing list munges up the headers (by removing important information). Check the archive; http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html is absolutely correct. Reply-To munging is to work around bugs in broken mail clients. Either fix your email client, or use one that isn't broken. Or of course, you could do as you suggest and use another feature and edit the recipient-list manually :) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
