Re: We can halve volume by not allowing nondevelopers to post
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 22:48:10 +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>quite lucid. and accurate too: setting the reply-to back to a list is
>brain-damaged.
If only you could prove that, eh?
>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.
Which is why I said, and I quote, "Most modern email clients." Two
examples I have were mutt and pine.
>l is for list reply
Once configured for each list and heaven forbid if the list changes.
>setting the Reply-To header breaks that. it LOSES functionality for no
>benefit at all.
Unproven.
>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.
One of the intended purposes was mailing lists. Read the RFC, 822. You
*have* read the RFC, haven't you, Craig? I mean, you can cuss up a storm
but it doesn't appear that you know how to do much of anything other than
that.
>the Reply-To header is there so that people who need it can use it, not
>for discussion lists to stomp over it.
I'm getting tired of quoting this passage from 822.
A somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message
teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution services:
include the address of that service in the "Reply- To" field of all messages
submitted to the teleconference; then participants can "reply" to conference
submissions to guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of their
own.
Gee, looks like mailing lists were included. You were saying?
>it is indeed trivial if the mailing list doesn't stomp on the reply-to
>header.
And trivial if a mailing list set is, as is allowed PER THE RFC.
>which just happens to be irrelevant to the topic at hand. the topic is
>about reducing traffic on the list, *NOT* eliminating needless CCs.
Right, so, did you actually read any of my messages? No, of course not.
You saw my name and decided to jump right in and flame without reading. A
common thread with you. See, my assertation was this: Asking people to
reply privately instead of mashing reply-to-all and banking away at the
keyboard is like asking people not to CC unless the individual requests it.
It has been discussed on this list (or -user, I forget which) that CCs are
discouraged unless requested. Yet the vast majority of the people CC
needlessly.
Now, if these people are CCing needlessly against that convention, what
then is to say that they are going to suddenly decide to reply privately
more often than not? Answer, there isn't anything. In fact, the CCing
issue is a point in favor of an arguement that they wouldn't.
Meanwhile, and here is the part you missed in your mad dash to flame me,
most modern email clients *prompt* on a reply-to when it is different than a
from. This is important. It now forces them to chose the address of the
list *or* the individual. Not an and process, an or process. It breaks the
routine and makes them think, "Should this go to the list (default behavior)
or to the individual." Obviously they aren't think about that *before* they
hit the reply(-to-all), so this makes them think about it after.
I then pointed out that a side benefit of that was that it would *ALSO*
cut down on the needless CCs.
>that's because you're a moron and incapable of understanding what you
>read.
I understand quite well. So far you've made several unsupported
assertations about a variety of topics and, when challenged on them, you
resort to abusive and inappropriate language in an effort to detract from
the fact that you have no facts, no logic and no ground to stand upon to
make your wild claims. For example, in the message I am replying to you
called me a moron twice.
I may employ sarcasm to get my point across, but I don't think I've
directly insulted you in such a fashion. This is for two reasons. One,
sarcasm is just sexier, funnier, and requires actual thought. Two, like it
or not, I back up my claims with cites of sources and well thought out
reasoning. Being a potty mouth, that would be you Craig, takes no thought,
no cites of sources, and no reasoning whatsoever. Why I even reply to your
dribble is beyond me other than it is fun to see how deeper you can dig your
hole with your brainless tirades.
- --
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc
iQA/AwUBNvT9Ynpf7K2LbpnFEQKCbwCbBaa3boIIRgOCo2phgzgs9OFTTRgAniZV
K7hheumhQ3kp0aV/sYzN7m3h
=UTQU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: