On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> I haven't seen a summary of this big thread, so I'm going to try to
> write one. I'll focus on Reply-To munging here (orthogonal to
> non-subscribers).
Sorry for replying again on this thread, but I found a few more arguments:
http://woozl
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> It may be common knowledge. It is not reflexive behaviour. People reach for
> plain reply by habit. Happens all the time, very common.
Since you are taking your assumptions as truth, I'll do the same:
The only people that have a "reply" r
On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 12:10 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> Can the in-reply-to header be embedded in a mailto: link?
You can only really rely on the "to" address making through a mailto
link. And even then, it's only going to work when someone has a
configured mail client on the system.
It is
On 09Jul2010 12:03, Kwan Lowe wrote:
| On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
| wrote:
| [snip]
| > I also agree with the rest of your post (and see no reason to quote it
| > in its entirety :-), but I wonder if we're all just rearranging the
| > deckchairs on the Titanic when it com
On 11Jul2010 01:06, Felipe Contreras wrote:
| On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Tom H wrote:
| > On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
| > wrote:
| >> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Tim wrote:
| >>> In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists
| >>> are in
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Tom H wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Tim wrote:
>>> In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists
>>> are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Tim wrote:
>> In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists
>> are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know
>> that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Tim wrote:
> Tim:
>>> In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists
>>> are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know
>>> that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't preset for them. People
>>> will just hit reply
Tim:
>> In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists
>> are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know
>> that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't preset for them. People
>> will just hit reply, and expect it to do the right thing.
Felipe Cont
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:29 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Also, people that are used to Reply-To munging can get used to
>> clicking "reply to all"; it's a matter of habit, but no functionality
>> is lost.
>
> Why does no-one ever me
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Tim wrote:
> In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists
> are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know
> that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't preset for them. People
> will just hit reply, and expect it
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 09:24 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> I wonder if we're all just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic
> when it comes to mailing lists. I have the impression that the whole
> ml thing is actually a poor man's Usenet, invented because everyone
> has mail.
I've had the
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
[snip]
> I also agree with the rest of your post (and see no reason to quote it
> in its entirety :-), but I wonder if we're all just rearranging the
> deckchairs on the Titanic when it comes to mailing lists. I have the
> impression that
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 15:18 +0930, Tim wrote:
> A new post button, to write a new message to that group, that wasn't
> an erroneous reply to a prior post. A feature sadly lacking from mail
> clients when they're working with list mail, that could quite easily
> be added to the toolbar (or an alway
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 09:14 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Why does no-one ever mention "Reply To List" as the proper way to,
> duh, reply to the list?
Probably because it's hardly ever seen as an option to the user (it's
hidden, or simply not offered). Mail clients are often quite awful, an
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
>
> I haven't seen a summary of this big thread, so I'm going to try to
> write one. I'll focus on Reply-To munging here (orthogonal to
> non-subscribers).
An unsurprisingly biased and inaccurate summary...
--
users mailing list
users@lists
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:43:10 -0430,
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> That surely is up to the receiver, not the sender. Furthermore, as it
> will vary from list to list it seems impractical to have to set it
> individually for each post if the MUA doesn't support it automatically
> (Evolution
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 10:45 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:14:23 -0430,
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:29 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > Also, people that are used to Reply-To munging can get used to
> > > clicking "reply to all"; it's
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:14:23 -0430,
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:29 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Also, people that are used to Reply-To munging can get used to
> > clicking "reply to all"; it's a matter of habit, but no functionality
> > is lost.
>
> Why does
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 10:13 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:14:23 -0430
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> > Why does no-one ever mention "Reply To List" as the proper way to, duh,
> > reply to the list?
>
> Probably because all the mail clients I've seen have it hidden
> somewhe
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:14:23 -0430
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Why does no-one ever mention "Reply To List" as the proper way to, duh,
> reply to the list?
Probably because all the mail clients I've seen have it hidden
somewhere down inside some obscure pull-down and users don't
even know such a
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:29 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Also, people that are used to Reply-To munging can get used to
> clicking "reply to all"; it's a matter of habit, but no functionality
> is lost.
Why does no-one ever mention "Reply To List" as the proper way to, duh,
reply to the list?
Hi,
I haven't seen a summary of this big thread, so I'm going to try to
write one. I'll focus on Reply-To munging here (orthogonal to
non-subscribers).
Before starting it's worth to keep in mind that munging is a *default*
that is possible to manually change, and some clients have the option
to i
23 matches
Mail list logo
