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

Re: Bogus reply-to

I too use the wrong tool for the job; I am reading this through
news://linux.debian.user (newsgroups are so much more convenient that
mailing lists, particularly since I already read a dozen newsfroups),
which preserves every header, so I can munge them back into something
sensible, *except* it doesn't preserve Reply-To (for your posts, it
sets "Mail-Copies-To: never", which I use in my script to detect
people not wanting reply-tos).

Possibly this is why people reply-to you directly.

No. They do it because
a. The list doesn't set reply-to
b. With the settings this list has, most popular UAs such as Tbird deduce that if I reply, it replies only to the contributor. The alternative is "reply all," and then people need to prune.

This is a discussion list, and IMV its settings should reflect that use.

There are lists where off-list replies are appropriate: say I'm selling DVDs and this is my customer list. You and I would want replies to go to my enquiries address, not to the list.

I personally think that policies on mailing lists shouldn't dictate
things like reply-to (not that this one has been made publicly known
other than through your rants), because some people prefer to get a
reply-to (me, for example - reply-to means I can see any responses to
me straight away without having to wait for the mailing list to do its
thing), and I think it clutters the list to say "please reply to
me". Let your mailer do its thing (set your own reply-to[1] as
necessary, as you do), and hope that everyone respects it.

The list's settings should reflect its primary use. This is a discussion list and its settings should reflect that.



-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@computerdatasafe.com.au  Z1aaaaaaa@computerdatasafe.com.au
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/

Reply to: