On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 04:46:41PM -0500, Mark Allums wrote: > Andrew Sackville-West wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 03:57:27PM -0500, Mark Allums wrote: >>>> I would really like it if this list were like all others I am >>>> on/have ever been on, and used the reply-to field. >>>> >>>> I wish that they would set it up to be like this: >>>> >>>> From: the poster of the message >>>> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Reply-to: debian-user@lists.debian.org >>>> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org >>>> CC: other lists (crosspost) >>>> BCC: other recipients >>>> >>>> I will try to do better in the future. >>>> >>> >>> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html >>> >>> I have seen direct evidence of the problem inherent in reply-to >>> munging. We had a student reply to an email thinking she was replying >>> only to the instructor and instead sent her tearful sounding pleas to >>> the entire class list. Not cool. Much better to err on the side of >>> sending mail to fewer people than the opposite. > > In that case, be prepared to receive lots more broken threads. And not > just from me. From every newcomer who's ever been on a list before.
I anxiously await the flood of email. > Really, every other mailing list I participate in now, or in the past, > does it that way. The Debian lists are the exception, not the rule. I thought I was just being helpful in pointing out the logic behind avoiding reply-to munging, but apparently not. Note please that most people don't have this problem on this list. Those that do, quickly adapt. Also, there is a reply-to-list extension of some kind for t-bird. > > The student got a crash course in email settings. It's tough. That's > life. yeah, it's tough. It was also a simply avoided mistake. We all make simple mistakes. One that is so simply avoidable should be, IMO. but it's only that, my opinion. this issue has been flogged to death on this list many times. Read the archives. Sorry if I offended you. I will drop the subject. A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
