Jamin W.Collins wrote: > On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:47:57 +0100 Richard Kimber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >>Because the mailing list is set up to operate in a counter-intuitive >>way. > > > I find it really amazing how often I see statements like this. > > This mailing list is _not_ set up in a counter-intuitive way. The headers > of every message sent contain everything necessary for an MUA to know > where to sent list responses. > > There are at least two major factions of thought on how a mailing list > should be set up. One suggests that lists should munge their headers so > responses are forced to the list and the other suggests that MUAs should > be updated. Personally I prefer the later and have previously notified > the Sylpheed author of it's deficiency in this regard. I even provided a > patch to provide list reply functionality. Unfortunately, based on the > configuration of the Sylpheed list, the author appears to favor list > munging and has not included the patch. >
While I understand the reasons that the list it is set up as it is, just because it is the _best_ solution doesn't mean that it isn't also counter intuitive. It all depends on how people percieve messages they recieve from the list. If (like me) you store them all separately to your normal mail and percieve them as list traffic (messages sent to you from a list) the intuitive action to reply to a message in sent by the list is to "reply" to the message. If however you percieve the message as being sent directly to you by the sender then the intuitive action of "reply" is to reply directly to the sender (as it is set up currently). How intuitive an action is, (IMHO), is in the eye of the beholder. Barney P.S. I also have a broken mail reader ATM (NS 7.0) which won't give me a reply to list option, but at least it is better thn my alternative of Outlook. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
