On Aug 6, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Robert Blair wrote:
> ** Reply to message from "Hyrum K. Wright" <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu
> > on
> Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:27:19 -0700
>
>>> I'm on many mailing lists, and this is the only one I remember that
>>> doesn't have a Reply-To header that sends replies back to the list
>>> email. Is there a rationale for this, or has it just not been set
>>> up?
>>> I'd much rather that replies go to the list by default. Anyone else?
>>
>> See http://subversion.tigris.org/mailing-lists.html#reply-to
>
> I often see people on this list say "use reply to all" so that the
> information
> is included on the list, that should not be needed (it is dumb as I
> see it).
> "Reply-To-All" is an abomination from my perspective and should
> never have been
> added to as an option for email clients. Both side of the argument
> (for
> munging the replt-to) state that the problem is the email client but
> give
> different reasons. Well I must agree with them but their (both
> sides) reasons
> is because most email clients have the wrong options for replying.
>
> Since I dislike receiving multiple copies of list messages I set the
> "Reply-To"
> to the list for those lists that I belong to that don't do it for
> me. Your
> have been WARNED if you think you will reply to me only.
>
> --
> Robert Blair
>
Didn't mean to start a war of any kind. I asked for rationale, and
it's on the FAQ. Although I personally don't agree with it, I can
accept that the powers that be have decided such, and that I'm a
newcomer to the community.
Last question: Is there any opposition to posters putting the group
address in the Reply-To field?
- Quinn
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on 2008-08-07 00:50:23 CEST