Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
galevsky@gmail.com wrote:
> IMAP is not interesting for me at work, and there is reply-to-all
> feature yet, so I am not sure the problem is coming from Google MUA, but
> from the reply-to field instead. I read the Celejar link (thanks for
> him to have brought it up) and tried to think that it was the reason why
> we don't have it in debian ML. But I totally disagree with it.
>
> Next italics-bleu text is coming from
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> <http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html>.
>
>
> It Adds Nothing
>
> Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer.
> People want to munge Reply-To headers to make "reply back to the list" easy.
>
> ? Of course there is a plus. You don't have to pay attention to what
> kind of reply you are doing. (Nor what kind of MUA you are using....)
>
>
> It Makes Things Break
>
> It, in fact, /decreases/ functionality. Reply-To munging destroys the
> "reply-to-author" capability. Munging makes this command act effectively
> the same as the "reply-to-group" function. We haven't added anything
> new, we've only taken away. Reply-To munging is not merely benign, it is
> harmful.
>
> ? it missed something.... we are talking about adding Reply-to to ML,
> not to day-to-day emails. It is a wrong way not to take the use into
> consideration: most of the replies are done to the ML, so we can easily
> consider replying to the whole ML as a default behaviour. In very
> particular cases, when you don't want to share, you can do the cut/paste
> effort to target only one contributor, can't you ? So what's broken ?
>
>
> Freedom of Choice
>
> Some administrators justify Reply-To munging by saying, "All responses
> should go directly to the list anyway." This is arrogant.
>
> ? choice of what ? In our case we are talking about more convenience,
> and one point that can be checked is having the default behaviour
> matching the needs. No choice is bad. But what about the defaults tuned
> up ?
>
> Well, I still can't see any problem using reply-to. For ML usage, of
> course. (And there is also other usage, but no the matter here.)
>
> Gal'
>
>
> 2007/3/30, Ron Johnson < ron.l.johnson@cox.net
> <mailto:ron.l.johnson@cox.net>>:
>
> On 03/30/07 08:32, galevsky@gmail.com <mailto:galevsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am forwarding previous answers.... and adding that I do not want to
>> pop these mails since I suscribed lots of ML, not only debian
> ones, and
>> it is more convenient for me to read&write from gmail than poping 3
>> times (work - home - laptop) thousands of mails.....
>
> Complain to Google that their MUA is lacking an important feature.
>
> Reply-to-list
> OR
> IMAP functionality.
>
Before you contunue ranting, please read:
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
There you would learn that this sort of behavior is not acceptable here,
nor is the type of message (meaning formatted with HTML) the format we
use because not everyone can read it.
All you are doing is rehashing an argument that has taken place over and
over. You don't like the list, then unsubscribe. Simple.
Joe
- --
Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGDUB7iXBCVWpc5J4RAi29AKCo1/0+iQz24buhnabbbZWCstVN0QCgnXLG
tKfez/kuSFmwHD4YKGeV2SA=
=QVod
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: