On 2001.12.10 16:57 Oliver Sampson wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:30:04 -0500, David Elliott dfe@tgwbd.org wrote:
On 2001.12.09 17:15 Oliver Sampson wrote: [SNIP]
<ot> Why is the default behavior for the list to have replies go only to the sender and not to the list? </ot>
Because that would be ridiculous. The only way to really accomplish
that
is to add a Reply-To which means that it then becomes impossible to
easily
reply directly to the author.
Well, it's not rediculous. And it's not rediculous when you consider that *every other* list (save one) to which I'm subscribed has the list as the default reply-to. The assumption is that if it's important enough to be asked in public, then the answer should be public also. Why should the assumed answer be private? I'm in a habit of replying to mail, not replying-all to mail, and when I reply to mail on this list, I find that I end up sending it twice. (My assumption is that I'm a typical listserv subscriber.) Rarely, do I want to send an email off-list. Do you (and the majority of the members here) send so many off-list emails in response to on-list emails that having the default reply-to for the list, not be the list itself?
Hey, it was just a question.
Nah, more like a religious issue actually. I really despise the Reply-To munging on some lists and much prefer the way that it is done on this list (which I believe is also how the Linux Kernel list works, last time I was subscribed to it). The way I see it the reply-to header causes the mail client to do silly things and not including it allows more flexibility in the way messages are replied to. But believe me, when I first joined the list I was in your shoes until I realized that Reply-All is really the way to go.
If you think about it, it makes sense: Reply - i.e. Reply to the sender Reply All - i.e. Reply to everyone (which is usually the sender and the list).
Furthermore, if you include a reply-to header then: Reply - Replies to the list, not the sender Reply All - Replies to the list twice, once because it replaces the senders address with the reply to, and another time because the list was a receipient of the message. It also breaks anyone who actually uses a reply-to header for a legitimate reason.
This argument has been discussed before way back when on this list (or was it LKML?, I think it was this one). Almost the exact arguments I am giving above were presented. Believe me, I used to think like you did until I heard this argument, so maybe that'll set it in for ya.
[BIG SNIP]
I find filtering on the List-Id: field to be the most accurate and unambiguous.
List-Id: Wine Developer's List <wine-devel.winehq.com>
Hmm, Dunno how in the hell I missed that... maybe at one point that wasn't there so the only unique thing I could come up with was Sender:.
Anyway, this is the end of this thread by far, please send any responses directly using the Reply button as opposed to the Reply All button. :-P
-Dave