Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> wrote: >Tim McNamara writes: > >> Aarrgh, I forgot to send this to the list. I will never get used to >> the goofy way in which the LilyPond mailing list operates, not having >> the Reply-To header set to the list. It is the only mailing list I >> have ever been part of that doesn't have this as the default. > >http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Elm, which this guy loves, is an ancient, text-based email client. >Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer. >People want to munge Reply-To headers to make "reply back to the >list" easy. But it already is easy. Reasonable mail programs have >two separate "reply" commands: one that replies directly to the author >of a message, and another that replies to the author plus all of the >list recipients. I have *never* seen "reply to group" in any client I've worked with. -- Tim Slattery slatter...@bls.gov _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
