Hi, On Friday, August 11, 2006 at 11:01:43, Felix Miata wrote:
On 06/08/11 15:56 (GMT+0200) Henne Vogelsang apparently typed:
On Friday, August 11, 2006 at 15:08:43, houghi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 03:03:51PM +0200, Andreas Vetter wrote:
What do others think about this on that list?
(reply-to should go to the list) + 1
+1
Please read
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
Now read: http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html
and remember, this is a group discussion list, not a public questions/private answers list. There is infrequently any need for private replies to posters of such lists. It benefits the group greatly to have most answers available to all subscribers. As a consequence, the ease with which the exceptions may reply privately or not is simply not important.
The part of the "problem" that is about "where should the default answer go to" is totally debateable i agree. There are good arguments for both sides and i wouldnt like to decide based on them. You and the author of that page forget one thing. Its impossible to set a reply to if the list adds one. The mailinglist software has to remove all reply-to headers first and the insert the list one. So if i want answers only to some mailbox (there are tons of reasons to do so) reply-to munging makes this impossible. Henne P.S. That the page cites the wrong (old) RFC is there too but oh well.. -- Henne Vogelsang, http://hennevogel.de "To die. In the rain. Alone." Ernest Hemingway