Thomas Fernandez wrote: > Not here. Crtl-F4 creates a message to your PM account.
It's too bad this issue has strayed into the functionality specific to The Bat. (I realize I'm to blame as well...) The point is that regardless whether you *can* reply to author only, the fact remains that the way this list (and many others) is set up, it does not follow the logic of most e-mail clients. If we just look at the two *most common* forms of replies in 95% of e-mail clients out there (Reply and Reply to All), munging the Reply To address does, in fact, *take away* functionality rather than add it. Note that I'm not saying convenience - you could make a strong case for convenience, but what was pointed out in that article holds true with regard to Reply and Reply to All. The fact that The Bat can gracefully get around this is just testimony to The Bat's greatness - *NOT* evidence of the article's point being any less valid. > This doesn't change the fact that the Reply-To for this lsit is set > correctly to the list address, and it should be no other way. Not sure if there was an implied grin in your comment "and it should be no other way" but that's not exactly open-minded or fair. As previously noted, while I personally don't think forcing a Reply to list is a bad thing, I do find it interesting that it seems somewhat non-standard - at least against RFCs. To me, the argument for changing the reply address sounds like convenience and possibly that many other lists do it. The question I'm raising is why the double standard? Isn't the RFC/standard argument most often used for bottom quoting? > No hoops here. I have the choice of either hitting crtl-enter to reply > to the list, or crtl-F4 to reply to the author. Again, I'm arguing about the principle here - despite that TB isn't drastically affected. To me (and maybe I'm alone here...) it's still a "standard" violation to move away from the Reply and Reply All commands seen across most e-mail clients. This point (and really this whole argument) only caught my attention because of how often standards are brought up to defend some of the other choices of this list. I'm still confused as to why this list retains the name of the author, but puts the list address in the To: field. That's certainly not "standard," is it? I'm not sending the message to the author, I'm sending it to the list. This reply is going to TBUDL - not Thomas Fernandez. E-mail sent to Thomas Fernandez should not be addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Someone explain that one to me... ;) >> But go back through the archives of this list and look at the >> discussions about folder templates. Isn't the main argument against >> using folder templates the inherent risk of sending a PRIVATE message to >> the list - that the list address could inadvertently get put into a >> message where the user doesn't want it ??? > Correct. But that has nothing to do with my choice of crtl-enter vs > crtl-F4. I don't use folder templates. If you use the method I described earlier, it have EVERYTHING to do with the point I brought up. And (gasp!) if someone is using a different e-mail client, they certainly run the risk of sending a private message to a mailing list using the Reply All method and forgetting to delete the list address. -- Ken Green Using The Bat! v1.62r on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 ________________________________________________ Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
