Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4417 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] Reply-To: questions, was: [SLE] Computer can't keep time
  • From: Krikket <krikket@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:13:42 -0500 (EST)
  • Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0311242105020.25767-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

> * Krikket <krikket@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [11-24-03 00:06]:
> > On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> >
> > > * Krikket <krikket@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [11-23-03 22:43]:
> > > [snip ...]
> > > > Can you include more than one address on a reply-to line?
> > >
> > > Have you tried?
> >
> [snip ...]
>
> > I've poked around looking for soemthing like this, yes. But never
> > found anything.
> >
> > > Some of the effort must be your own. You will not learn to solve
> > > your own problems if you make no effort. You didn't even include
> > > the 'Reply-To:' header in you post.
> >
> > And I could go into the evils of using "reply-to" and why it's a bad
> > thing in general. But that's already been touched off on this list
> > recently. Nor have I been completely convinced that it's not a bad
> > thing for general use. But I'm willing to listen to
> > counter-arguments. Which is one reason why I asked those questions
> > in the first place.
>
> You should research your data. 'Reply-To:' is bad for for mail-list
> addresses, not to achieve personal responses to list mail.

And you shouldn't assume the other people are blowing smoke up your ass.
I"m not.

There are serious arguments out there as to why using "reply-to" under
*any* circumstances, but *particularly* in email going to a mailing list
is a bad idea. Do your own damned homework, and stop insulting me.

> > I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments, but I see no reason why I
> > should research something to convience you.
>
> Think again. There is no inconvenience to me. You posed the lack of
> means to achieve an objective but appear to be unwilling to experiment
> ways proposed to reach that objective.

Ah, but who wants me to reach the objective? I honestly don't care. I'm
happy with it. And now that I've been given some pointers, I've started
experimenting with this list only, and only this list. The Great Ghod
Ghu knows that I'd be roasted alive, even if I wore asbestos undies if I
were to try this on other mailing lists that are primarily inhabited by
hard-core computer geeks who (like me) have been on the net since before
the web was invented/designed. Why would I be roasted? Because of that
counter-argument that you think doesn't exist.

> > I'm more than willing to let things go as is -- I've been happy with the
> > result. The additional tweak would be nice, but that's all. I don't
> > consider it worth the time or effort to put much into it.
>
> Then there's your answer. You aren't interested.

Err, no. See above.

> > Remember, you're the one who's annoyed by things, not me. I'm just
> > asking for a way of minimzing your annoyance.
>
> Incorrect again. I have a procmail recipe that /dev/null's duplicates
> because individuals of your mindset are not interested in netiquette.

Incorrect again. I *do* care about netiquette, and I've had it pounded in
to me time and time again over the years that using a reply-to in the
context of anything but a private email to an individual (IE: NOT a
mailing list) is a *very* bad thing to do. And personally, I agree. But
if the majority of people here think that the rules of netiquette are
sopmehow different here, I'll change -- if people are willing to give me
the needed pointers.

Krikket


< Previous Next >
Follow Ups
References