Mike McCarty wrote:
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> That's only one admin's opinion. I find the opposite superior:
>> http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html
Felix (I know, I'm replying to Mike but attribution is corerct here), this
page is simply outdated. It references 822 and was written prior to 2822. It
completely ignores the verbage in 2822 and 2369. 2822 removes the reply-to
for "text based teleconferencing" and 2369 introduces "list-post" which, in
spite of some pig-headed opinions to the contrary, is widely used as a method
to direct mailing software as to where one may send replies in a list context.
In fact, from the message I am replying to:
List-Post: <mailto:debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Some software does honor list-post and those that don't often have a bug
filed against it for failing to do so.
>> This is a public discussion list, not a public questions/private answers
>> list. You can't have a public discussion when people make their replies
>> private.
(again, to Felix)
And it is up to the individual on how they wish to reply. Quite frankly
if someone wanted to reply in a private manner to criticize someone else for
something that shouldn't be on the list in the first place, that is their
business. The [b]sender[/b] gets to choose.
> The only arguments I've seen seem to be either-or. I've not seen an
> argument made for "both". ISTM that if someone really wants to
> use a Reply-to: field specifying one different from that he originates,
> there should be no problem with simply adding the list address to
> that field.
Except this breaks reply-to as a means to direct comments off list. Also
I'm not sure reply-to is a valid place to have multiple recipients.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature