Hello ken, On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:45:23 -0600 GMT (21/11/2003, 11:45 +0700 GMT), ken green wrote:
> It's too bad this issue has strayed into the functionality specific to > The Bat. (I realize I'm to blame as well...) Otherwise it would be off-topic on this list. ;-) > 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. I don't see that. Also, the author of that article argues with his own email-client "elm". > 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. TB is only an example. Generally speaking, I fail to see the point in the article. He prefers to use "r" instead of "g" (or the other way round, I didn't re-read the article now), and that has to do with his preferences but not with general thruths. >> 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. I meant the way I said it. It's efficient, and I am not very open-minded to inefficiency, I admit. ;-) > 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. Ah! Now here is a point. Except, I cannot find the RFC violation. > 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? The inline quoting on this list is an agreement on this list; other lists use top or bottom quoting. There is no RFC standard about this. >> 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 still don't see the standard violation, but if you point to the RFC in question, I will look into it. > 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] I completely agree with you here. That's why I have set the macro in my Reply-Template for this list as you see above. >> 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. I was replying to your argument that replying to the list or to the author requires folder tempaltes. That is not the case. > 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. Some people use other amilers on this list, for example when they reply from work. I haven't seen messages inadvertyedly CC'ed to the list in the case you mention. Folder templates are far more popular for this kind of amusement for the list! ;-) Sorry, you haven't convinced me. If you would like to continue to discuss this, I suggest we move the TBOT. I have copied the off-topic list in already, for that purpose. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty not saftey." (Benjamin Franklin, 1759) Message reply created with The Bat! 2.01.26 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 2222 A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM ________________________________________________ Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
