Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 01:59:07AM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> >
> >
> > (On that note I would dearly love to get rid of the stupid "[GENERAL]"
> > "[HACKERS]" etc tags? ...
[snip]
> >
> I absolutely agree
I hate the damn things with a passion.
>
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The basic issue is that the current setup encourages
> reply-to-author-and-list, while adding Reply-To encourages
> reply-to-list-only
It also makes it impossible to reply to the author personally. Normally there
are two actions possible on a message, "foll
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:36:10 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The basic issue is that the current setup encourages
> reply-to-author-and-list, while adding Reply-To encourages
> reply-to-list-only (at least when the replier is using one of the mail
> clients I'm used to).
[narrowed to p
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 07:35:41AM -0500, Jim Seymour wrote:
>
> Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 07:34:28PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > >
> > > What is the general opinion of this? I'd like to implement it, but not
> > > so
> > > much so that I'm
Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 07:34:28PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> > What is the general opinion of this? I'd like to implement it, but not so
> > much so that I'm going to beat my head against a brick wall on it ...
> >
> Personally I'm against
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 07:34:28PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> What is the general opinion of this? I'd like to implement it, but not so
> much so that I'm going to beat my head against a brick wall on it ...
>
Personally I'm against it because it means that I'll often get two
replies wh
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We've done quite well with the current setup, so I don't see a need to
> tinker with it. I've always found the Reply-to-enabled lists I'm on to
> be a more lossy medium.
The basic issue is that the current setup encourages
reply-to-author-and-list,
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the general opinion of this? I'd like to implement it, but not so
> much so that I'm going to beat my head against a brick wall on it ...
I think we've discussed this in the past, and the consensus has always
been that more people like it
What is the general opinion of this? I'd like to implement it, but not so
much so that I'm going to beat my head against a brick wall on it ...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7
