On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:40:27 -0700, David Rogers <davidandrewrog...@gmail.com> wrote: > * Michael Welsh Duggan <m...@md5i.com> [2010-08-30 18:04]: >>Yes, there is a reason. >> >>http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html >>http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.txt > > > The logic at those links is impeccable but irrelevant. The "harm" in > "reply-to considered harmful" affects only the elegance of the config > files of a few of the l33t.
If that's what you think, you maybe did not really understand the reply-to-harmful article. (I don't see anything there about l33t config files being harmed). > The harm in multiple misdirected replies is > greater, and a reply not to the list is by definition misdirected. If you see a message from Bob in your inbox, and reply using Bob's mail address, that is a properly directed reply, which may come in two flavors: with or without a cc: to the discussion. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
