[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Duplicate messages on this list

steveg@rpcweb.dmccorp.com (Steve Greenland)  wrote on 07.12.97 in <19971207110408.16893@rpcweb.dmccorp.com>:

> On 07-Dec-1997 12:43:00, Kai Henningsen <kaih@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
> > That's true. The problem, however, is that better solutions are next to
> > non-existant - I sure don't consider something that only works for a very
> > small number of mail clients a "solution".
> "Reply-to-all" + editing is available only with a "small number of clients"?

That's a "solution"? It's about as good as what I currently use (address  
replies via the address book). It's also about as error prone.

> > Don't break the setup for 90% to cater to 10%. I think you are in the 10%
> > group, here.
> I don't think the ratio is that lob-sided. I think the main argument
> against the Reply-To: list munging is that you're more likely to send

Note that I don't advocate Reply-To: munging. I'm just attacking some  
arguments against it. _I_ can live with the current setup, even though  
it's definitely suboptimal.

MfG Kai

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: