[OT] Re: use reply-to?

On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 03:31:07PM -0800, Sean Russell wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 February 2002 01:07 pm, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> > I'm sure we've all seen the various "considered harmful" documents, so I
> > won't repeat it here. Suffice it to say, that the prevailing opinion [of
>
> There's a longish message by Karl waaaay back in 2000, which points to the
> Unicom document, which I could hack apart, but which I'll simply refute with:

You can also refer to this document:

    http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml

That is a long, cogent reponse to the unicom document.

> "Make the common case simple, and the incommon case possible."
>
> The anti-munging league violates this principle, which is the primary reason
> why the rest of the world hates computer programmers. The arguments in
> support of the other principles (PoLS, etc) are pretty weak, and easily
> refuted. I'll be happy to go one-on-one, off-list, with anybody who
> disagrees.

hehe... your statement is valid, but you must first show that not-munging is
making the common case not-simple.

In my Mutt mailer, I always use group-reply (bound to 'r'; although I should
probably use list-reply more often). The group-reply does the right thing
for individual mail, and for list mail. When I want to respond to a single
person, I use the standard reply (bound to alt-r).

In Outlook, I hit the Reply All button (or ctrl-shift-r), or the Reply
button (or ctrl-r).

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org