Matt Kettler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/13/02 at 15:36: > I'd say that's perfectly reasonable.. Unfortunately some of mailing lists > flat-out munge any existing reply-to's.. which is the bad part everyone > objects to. > > ie: if I explicitly set a reply-to of myself because I wanted private > replies, and the list over-wrote that, I'd be a bit bent outa shape. That's
Why would you, by default, want private replies to a public question? I can understand it happening sometimes, but always? If you wanted private communication, why join a public list? :-) > nothing short of broken behavior by the list. However if I don't have one > present at all, it seems reasonable for the list to add one. (Although I > would admitt, I currently prefer getting two copies like I do now..) I don't; means I have one in my INBOX, and one in my mailing list folder. So now I have duplicate information, extra bandwidth (altho luckily I don't pay by time), etc. > > The only drawback is on "tech supportish" mailing lists where a some of the > posters aren't subscribed.. like here on saTalk (look around for requests > to be directly cc'ed.. there's a noticeable number of em.. makes me wonder I see them. I post back to the list. If they want help, join the list. IMO. -- PGP Fingerprint: 0AA8 DC47 CB63 AE3F C739 6BF9 9AB4 1EF6 5AA5 BCDF Member, LEAF Project <http://leaf.sourceforge.net> AIM: MikeLeone Public Key - <http://www.mike-leone.com/~turgon/turgon-public-key.asc> Registered Linux user# 201348 Boom diddy diddy, Boom diddy do Queen
msg11154/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
