[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Greenland) wrote on 07.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 07-Dec-1997 12:43:00, Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's true. The problem, however, is that better solutions are next to > > non-existant - I sure don't consider something that only works for a very > > small number of mail clients a "solution". > > "Reply-to-all" + editing is available only with a "small number of clients"? That's a "solution"? It's about as good as what I currently use (address replies via the address book). It's also about as error prone. > > Don't break the setup for 90% to cater to 10%. I think you are in the 10% > > group, here. > > I don't think the ratio is that lob-sided. I think the main argument > against the Reply-To: list munging is that you're more likely to send Note that I don't advocate Reply-To: munging. I'm just attacking some arguments against it. _I_ can live with the current setup, even though it's definitely suboptimal. MfG Kai -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
