On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 10:20:01PM -0500, Mike Green wrote:
[snip]
> About the "Reply-To:" issue: I believe that it's more convenient to have the
> Reply-To field set to the majordomo list rather than the person who wrote
> it. It's especially handy if you'd like to share a particular thought with
> the whole list rather than the sender. (I think there's a setting in
> majordomo to set a field "Original-From:", similar as with forwarding).
>
> You could actually click the "Reply To All" button, but not all e-mail
> software have this feature.
There is always a debate about this. There are camps on both sides that
feel strongly. I personally don't like the Reply-To set to the list as
it is too easy to mail everyone when that is often what I don't want.
Just because a list exists doesn't mean that all replies should go to
it. Lists that stay on topic and have a low noise to signal ratio
are much more effective and valuable.
Real mail programs make it easy to reply to the list, such as the L key
in mutt which is even better than a Reply To All (which mutt also has).
Even though it seems that it is usually the Windows users that are asking
for Reply To List, there are Windows programs that will accomodate
people just fine. The Microsoft Outlook program that you are using is
close with its Reply to Group, if only they gave you a way to count mailing
lists like news groups.
Contrary to a prior message, Reply To List is not common place. This is
a developer's list and I would think that everyone here would be able to
configure their mail client properly or be able to obtain one that
works properly.
The article Ross cites gives some very good reasons to leave the list
as-is. Why make people guess who they are replying to? If there is
confusion, the best path is the one that will send to the least
number of people.
ROSS, my vote is to leave the list configuration as-is.
kenn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:38:00 EDT