[Fullquote intended.] Am Mittwoch 01 September 2010, 06:20:06 schrieben Sie: > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:19:56 +0200, Jan Kohnert > > <nospam001-li...@jankoh.dyndns.org> wrote: > > David Rogers schrieb: > >> * Jan Kohnert <nospam001-li...@jankoh.dyndns.org> [2010-08-31 06:22]: > >> >David Rogers schrieb: > >> >> * Michael Welsh Duggan <m...@md5i.com> [2010-08-30 18:04]: > >> >> >Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> writes: > >> >> >> Is there a reason that the reply-to header is not set for the > >> >> >> mailing list? > >> >> > > >> >> >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. > >> > > >> >That are mail standards since 20+ years, if a MUA doesn't get it right, > >> >it's not the fault of the list. ;) > >> > >> True and still irrelevant. > > > > OK, I don't like Flamewars, so I'll stop here. But one thing I have to > > add: You are using Mutt, according to your headers. Mutt in fact knows > > list-reply, > > at least according to [1]. So why not using this? That would solve all > > your problems. :) > > List reply is a poor idea, because it assumes that the > sender is subscribed to the list. The assumption is only valid for > lists that are configured not to allow posting by non-members.
Well, no. A list configured to only allow list member to post, could have the reply-to set to the lists adress. That would only be a problem, if one member intends to have a private answer to another member, when this person needs to adjust the address. For all lists allowing everyone to post, list-reply is a real advantage (as I stated earlier). reply-to-list lets the discussion be available for all members, reply-to-all includes members and the OP, and reply only includes the OP. That's just how it's supposed to work. > Reply-all does the right thing in all situations (including > lists that only allow posting by members), so list reply > function isn't needed. Reply-all is what solves all problems, > real or imagined. In the context of a list discussion, > the "all" means "all discussion parties, consisting of the > union of the author and the set of members of the mailing > list". That is the correct set of destinations for > the group discussion. Again, getting to your example: if a list allows non-members to post, reply-to set on the lists address would exclude the OP, which is non-member. You whould manually have to add his address in Cc. That's a true disadvantage. > Anything less inclusive than that risks being broken > in some situation. > > If you train yourself to use the mechanism which doesn't > work 100% of the time, you will eventually screw up. > > Maybe all the lists you are on today are restricted > to members-only posting, but that could change > tomorrow. And then you will have to re-train your fingers > to hit Reply-all. > > Reply-all also ensures that the author gets a reply which > isn't delayed by list processing. This is useful when > someone needs some urgent assistance. In those cases, that > someone is often not subscribed to the list. > If I need help with something, and that something > has a mailing list that allows non-member postings, > I won't waste time subscribing just to get my question > answered! You got the original question wrong: The Thread started asked about reply-to set to the list, which does exactly to opposite of what you are describing in this paragraph. > What if the list is moderated? A list-only reply could > sit in the moderation queue for days without being > read by the original author. Are you going to > let some list admin decide what you can and cannot > write to the author of the original message? Who is talking about list-only reply??? I'm not. lilypond-user sets different mail headers, one of it is called "List-Post". And *you* are free to choose: - using reply answers to the OP (or the reply-to he set in his MUA, which would be overwritten by a forced reply-to from the list) - using reply-all answers to the OP *and* the list - using reply-list answers to the list (so if the OP isn't subscribed, he won't get the answer) I don't see *any* problem with that situation, you only have to choose. :) [I probably need to add: OP *in this and my previous mails in this thread* means the original poster of *a* thread on any mailing list, or *a* poster of an answer within *a* thread someone answers, *not* the original poster of *this* tread, which I called thread-starter to avoid confusions.) -- MfG Jan
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
