[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [school-discuss] Reply-to considered harmful (was Re: Job advert)

On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:02:27PM -0600, cdmiller wrote:
> Most of the earliest lists I was on always set the reply-to to the list 
> address, I believe to foster discussion on list for the benefit of the 
> subscribers.

Ditto.  So, personally, I'm a "Reply-to munging" advocate for 99% of the
lists I'd participate in.  There are some lists that don't munge, and for
those I alias the [R] key in Mutt to act as a list reply (normally the
[L] key in Mutt), for the folders that those lists drop into (via procmail).

I found this easier on myself than trying to break a 10-year habit of hitting
[R] to reply to a list post.  Admittely, switching to using the [L] key
specifically would be more sensible, but try to explain that to my fingers. :)
(The [G]roup reply key is right out.)

> These days I, (and probably all of us), deal with lists operating in 
> both fashions, but I prefer the simple reply-to list myself, because I 
> am lazy.  One will always encounter folks on both sides of this fence.

What I don't understand, and I have to pin down Marc Merlin the next time
I see him at an SVLUG meeting (since it appears he was working on this)
is why something like Mailman still doesn't appear to have a per-user
setting for this !?!?!?!

The munge/don't-munge wars continue to rage on to this day, but it could
be as easily controlled (by the end users) as the "not metoo" and "digest"
options! :^)

So consider this not an argument for or against (just an anecdote about my
own experiences), but more a question: why isn't this configurable on
a per-user basis!? :^)