Tim Slattery <slatter...@bls.gov> writes: > 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.
It is usually called "Reply All" or "Followup". -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
