> > But since this is techtalk, and since we seem to be discussing
> > etiquette, is there any real reason why Reply-To is set to the
> > list? There's an article detailing reasons why it can be a bad
> > idea at http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> I have read the article at that link a couple of times now, and in the
> early days of LinuxChix I made the decision to leave the reply-to to the
> list because there were only a few of us here, and conversations kept
> drifting off the list into the nether-regions that are "offlist".
>
One thing I will note: the group reply the author of the page mentions in
Elm, will group reply, yes. But it usually ends up giving the original author
two copies (one direct, the other from the list). I've been on some lists
where people weren't overly happy by this. One list in particular had most of
the users keep posting reminders ("I'm on the list - no need to cc me").
I can get around the problem with my mailer (I use exmh 2.0.2) - I'll work
out how to add a third option to look at the headers and potentially use the
"Sender:" header, if I know I can trust it. It's not what the header is there
for, I know, but if it minimises duplicates, I'll use it.
Most (all?) other mail programs will have Elm's behaviour. I myself do find
it annoying...if you do a group reply to a reply that someone sent you where
you were Cc'd from the list, then you'll get a duplicate of your own mail
back on your machine (the list, and your Cc). Manually editing the headers is
then the way to fix it.
There is no perfect solution though - it's one or the other. I'm raising this
as a point of interest. I'll go along with whatever the final decision is
though without a problem :)
Chris...
--
@}-,'-------------------------------------------------- Chris Johnson --'-{@
/ "(it is) crucial that we learn the difference / [EMAIL PROTECTED] \
/ between Sex and Gender. Therein lies the key / \
/ to our freedom" -- LB / www.nccnet.co.uk/~sixie \
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
