On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 06:58:49 +0200 Jan Kohnert <nospam001-li...@jankoh.dyndns.org> wrote: > 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.
Or simply use "Reply all" every time as some of us keep saying. That always does the right thing. > > 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. No it doesn't. Read his whole answer. If someone posts to the list and he is not subscribed then replying to all does exactly the right thing. It sends the reply to the list regardless of the Reply-to field and it sends a copy to the OP. If Reply-to is not set to the list then replying to all does the right thing but a plain reply does the wrong thing. It sends the reply to the OP but does not copy the list for further discussion. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain Big Smoke Music http://BigSmokeMusic.com/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
