Micha Feigin wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:06:55 +0200
Shachar Shemesh <shac...@shemesh.biz> wrote:
[...]
I could understand the use for "reply to list" when some people would
get double the emails against their wishes. This, however, is no longer
an issue with most modern mailing list managers.
Well, at the moment I'm getting double emails from this list for this whole
thread and for some reason when I post to the list I get a message that my mail
is waiting moderator approval since I'm not registered, but still sends me all
list mails, doesn't seem to unregister me and registering again doesn't seem to
do any good either. Any ideas or a list moderator out there that can check my
list status to try and see where it is wrong?
Please forward all copies you get of this email. Make sure the forward
is with all the headers. I'll try to have a look at it.
Shachar
Thanks
Here is the situation as I see it:
Reply to all: You respect each individual's preferences regarding how
many copies they want to receive.
Reply: You want to send a private reply, only to the sender (impossible
when the list has "reply to list")
And the non-standard buttons
Reply to sender: Only makes sense in order to override lists with the
broken "reply to list" header.
Reply to list: You force people like me to get only one copy against my
wish, and you are proud of it.
To me, it seems obvious that the polite thing to do, especially on a
list that has no-dupes support, is to do "reply to all" by default.
Since I think this is the right default for private communication as
well for the reasons stated above, I don't see a problem. I am, however,
open to the possibility that I'm wrong, if anyone wishes to enlighten me.
At least with claws mail, in addition to the list, if you have a reply to
address it also adds that to the cc field, don't know if others do the same.
Yes, that's precisely what "reply to all" does. Put the original sender
in the "to" and everyone else in the "cc".
On the other hand, I've noticed that there are two from fields at the
moment, one of the original poster and the other:
>From linux-il-boun...@cs.huji.ac.il Wed Jan 28 18:04:20 2009
First, I didn't see that. Second, what you quote is not a header. An
SMTP header has a colon (:) between header and data. What you are
quoting is the SMTP MTAs log line, and is ignored by any sane mail client.
Looked at the source, I'm seeing the same from field twice, probably doesn't
make a difference, just pointed it out in case it does. It's been some time
since I dealt with the smtp protocol so I don't remember the specifics.
Shachar
_______________________________________________
Linux-il mailing list
Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
_______________________________________________
Linux-il mailing list
Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
_______________________________________________
Linux-il mailing list
Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
