Re: We can halve volume by not allowing nondevelopers to post
On Sun, Mar 21, 1999 at 01:28:22AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 18:50:43 +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > this is bullshit. setting Reply-To would force all traffic back to
> > the list and make it extremely difficult to send private replies.
>
> I see you're as lucid as always, Craig.
quite lucid. and accurate too: setting the reply-to back to a list is
brain-damaged.
> How does it make it extremely difficult to send private replies? Hrm,
> let me see. If the mail client PROMPTS me which address to reply to,
not all mail clients prompt, you moron. don't assume that the behaviour
YOU personally prefer in a mail client is what everyone else prefers.
some people prefer to use real mail clients on a unix box.
a decent mail client has at least the following functions:
r is for private reply
g is for group reply (i.e. to all To and CC addresses)
l is for list reply
setting the Reply-To header breaks that. it LOSES functionality for no
benefit at all.
> I can, oh, here's the part you're having trouble with, *CHOOSE* the
> private address to send a private reply.
if someone is using a Reply-To: header for their intended purposes (i.e.
to direct personal replies to their preferred address) and a mailing
list stomps over that header then it is impossible to send that person a
private reply.
the Reply-To header is there so that people who need it can use it, not
for discussion lists to stomp over it.
> No, Craig, it isn't extremely hard to send a private reply. In fact,
> it is quite trivial.
it is indeed trivial if the mailing list doesn't stomp on the reply-to
header.
> Meanwhile group-reply in the hands of most people, just floods people
> with needless CCs.
which just happens to be irrelevant to the topic at hand. the topic is
about reducing traffic on the list, *NOT* eliminating needless CCs.
> >setting Reply-To: back to the list is brain-dead.
>
> I have yet to see a single valid arguement to that assertation.
that's because you're a moron and incapable of understanding what you
read.
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: