2 Feb
2000
2 Feb
'00
7:33 p.m.
First of all, "Thanks!" to Jay for getting the list going again. The
withdrawal symptoms are beginning to wear off now :-)
On Feb 2, 23:56, DASTAR COM wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Jay West wrote:
Sellam has a point here; it is considered bad netiquette to do that, and
that's why newsreaders, for example, won't get the GNSA if they allow a
followup posting to also be emailed to the author automatically. However,
this isn't usenet, and it's easy in most mailers to remove the extra
address. I hope people do so, and I hope they'll also forgive me when I
forget :-)
I've always wondered why the list was set up
the way it was.
Because:
b) who the hell wants to have to read the same message TWICE? (once from
the list and once from the replier) c) it's an incredible pain in the ass having to
edit the reply-to
addresses for every damn message you reply to
Virtually all mailers have a "reply all" function. I can think of just one
exception, and that's a mailer intended as a local delivery agent, not a
mail user agent.
Besides, despite what the aforementioned article says,
the previous list
reply-to mechanism was working, and working well. The article is just a
masturbatory entreaty for one persons personal preferences, and does not
really take into account convenience for the overall list.
No, it isn't. There are good reasons for the "Reply-to:" header to
override the "From:" address, where the "From:" address is not valid
or
correct for incoming mail. That's more common than many people think. If
you use "Reply-to:" for list redirection, that breaks, and irrevocably
removes the correct address for replies to the author.
Although old habits die hard, and it will take a little getting used to, I
prefer the new method.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York