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

Re: More detailed post ...



Hi,

* Fred Smith <fps@dividedsky.net> [030210 16:41]:
> On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 01:46, Thorsten Haude wrote:
> > I'm not intimate with the datails of Netscape's usage; you arbitrary
> > send the mail to two addresses where one is enough to do the work.
> > 
> > Please explain where the value is in sending the mail twice.
> 
> i think a bigger problem is that mail from lists.debian.org does not use
> the standard convention of setting the "reply-to:" header to the list's
> post address. In most email software this results in 2 methods of
> replying to a message: 
> 1) "reply", which goes only to the person who wrote the original post
> 2) "reply to all", which sends a message to both the list address and to
> the original poster.
> 
> mutt does this,
<snip>

Woow, slow down there. I don't really wish to participate in a MUA
pissing contest, but mutt has a list-reply (default key binding L)
function. 

> netscape/mozilla does this and evolution does this.  the
> kind people at ximian were good enough to add a "reply to list" function
> to evolution to get around _broken_ mailing list software (like whatever
> is running lists.debian.org) but this is not standard.

Hmm, for the list software/configuration to be "broken" it must be
behaving in a manner different to a well defined standard. I must plead
ignorance in this matter; what standards exist for list server
behaviour?

> if you are going to be complaining to anyone, you should complain to
> whomever runs lists.debian.org, not to the people who accidentially (or
> unknowingly) send a "reply to all" whenever they post to this list.

Sure we all sometimes (at least I do) screw up and CC the poster when
we shouldn't or, reply off instead of onlist but this occurs only
occasionally. If the majority of us can follow the protocol, why
should lists.debian.org change their setup because a few people are
lazy with their email?

Nick.

-- 
Debian testing/unstable
Linux onefish 2.4.20-lavienx #1 Mon Jan 6 17:03:01 JST 2003
i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux



Reply to: