Subject: RE: Reply-To: Setting
From: Pete Peters (ppeters@broadcastzone.com)
Date: Thu Oct 05 2000 - 12:36:15 MDT
I agree. Reply-to should go the list. If it doesn't go to the list, you
can't search for answers in the list archives (and we all do that first
before posting, right? <g>)
Pete
> ----------
> From: Stefan Jeglinski
> Reply To: yellowdog-general@lists.yellowdoglinux.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2000 6:33 AM
> To: yellowdog-general@lists.yellowdoglinux.com
> Subject: Re: Reply-To: Setting
>
> The way I see it, the purpose of the list is to have a public
> discussion. The purpose of the sender's e-mail is to have a private
> discussion. That's kinda how things were back in the days of Moses :-)
>
> I like the reply-to as is. As a general rule, I want my response to
> go back to the list. Then, if I want to include the original sender,
> I can select the much-less-used "reply to all" feature of my e-mail
> program, which puts those recipients into the cc header. It just
> seems more natural to me. If I am on a list and a private reply is
> required, then I can take the few extra steps to do cutting and
> pasting. But in our perfect world, private replies on a public list
> should be few, eh?:-). Unless of course, you're a flamer.
>
> I know there are exceptions and counter-arguments, but in the absence
> of a consensus, the list manager should appeal to pure logic. In my
> mind then, you're on a list, so you reply to the list. OTOH, if there
> -is- a strong consensus, the list manager should go with that. As has
> been noted, in the beginning the consensus was to reply to the list.
> But demographics and opinions change.
>
> linuxppc-user is not set up this way, but I personally wish it was.
> However, I assume it operates by consensus, and I'm happy to follow
> that.
>
>
>
> Stefan Jeglinski
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 12:41:29 MDT