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

Re: First steps in packaging

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, David Z Maze wrote:

> > Odd considering that so far most every reply that I've received
> > (except yours of course) included two copies.  And the fact that you
> > can't just hit "reply" and have it go back to the list - it wants to
> > only reply to the sender.
> Your mailer doesn't have a "reply to all" button?  Get a better one,
> Debian has lots.

The problem we're discussing, though, is that "reply to all" means exactly
that - to *all*.  Two separate e-mail addresses, one of which will bounce
what it gets to a bunch of people - including the person who got a copy of
their very own.  Pine (my e-mail program of least learning curve) goes
nicely in reply-to-all - as long as I don't mind moving the Cc: address to
the To: address.

What's needed (I'm spitballing here) is a "reply to Cc:" or "Reply to
List-Post:" feature.  Considering that most people appear to be unable to
work out the difference between 'Reply' and 'Reply to all' (at least,
judging by the crap I get from random idio^H^H^H^Hpeople I get at work),
'Reply to CC' would just be way over the top...

> > I'm surprised the list doesn't set the reply-to field.
> Google for "reply-to considered harmful"; the upshot is that if I want

http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html, to make it easier (anyone
thinking Reply-to munging is a good idea should definitely read it).  I'm no
fan of the practice, but it does fix the problem at hand - duplicate copies. 
The slight benefit is outweighed by the problems it causes - nicely covered
in the article above.

Of course, depending on your POV, it might be seen as less resource
intensive just to set up a procmail duplicate-killer instead of trying to
educate the entire Internet on proper e-mail technique.  Considering that we
haven't even un-TOFU'd the world, I don't think there's going to be much
hope in the list etiquette arena...

#include <disclaimer.h>
Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence

Reply to: