|
All Archives /
aussie-isp /
2006-01
|
<<< Date >>> | |
| Permanent Link | ||
|
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:35:33 +1100
From: Craig Sanders To: aussie-isp Cc: aussie-isp Message-Id: <20060114233533.GZ8779@taz.net.au> In-Reply-To: <43C8913D.4020508@overflow.net.au> References: <000901c5ec40$07253c30$0264a8c0@spider> <437DFC29.1030307@rebel.net.au> <002801c5ec6f$df1e3130$0264a8c0@spider> <200601111625230851.72729DE4@smtp1.ace.net.au> <20060112073430.X75461@bozo.wonk.org> <Pine.LNX.4.56.0601131239430.29546@localhost.localdomain> <200601141009520497.062B5F4F@smtp1.ace.net.au> <43C847D9.1020707@overflow.net.au> <qf2hs11f2d2ibotgn54rjape9bkktmae5j@4ax.com> <43C8913D.4020508@overflow.net.au> Subject: Re: [Oz-ISP] Replacement list? |
No followups recorded. |
|
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 03:50:53PM +1000, Brendan Pratt wrote: > Have a look at how many email addresses have now been placed in the > header. :) > > Now you will get two replies if I do not change the headers, one direct > to you, one via the list/s. > > Lists that have been created so that replies go direct to the list by > default, have only one email address in the header, that being the list. there are three reply options in any decent mail client: 1. private reply to the sender ("r" key in mutt) 2. group reply to all in From, To, CC headers ("g" key in mutt) 3. reply to list address only ("L" key in mutt). option 3 generally requires either the list-name to be configured in the email client, or for the list to send appropriate headers (as MailMan does) so that the client can figure it out. although i'm occasionally lazy/slack about it, i generally use group reply and edit the To & CC headers appropriately to get rid of excess CCs. i wish more people did that. > The reason why reply to list can be a pita, is where people who really > intended to send a private reply, forget and send it to the list.... > yeah, I've done it myself before now. :) in other words, Reply-To minging violates the principle of Doing Least Harm. if a post intended to be public is accidentally sent privately, no harm is done - just resend it....but if a post intended to be private is accidentally sent publicly (and if it contains embarassing or confidential information) then it could cause a lot of harm. it also destroys and Reply-To: header that the original poster set themself. oddly, the person who requested Reply-To munging had a Reply-To set in his own mail - "Reply-To: e m a i l @ a c e . n e t . a u craig PS: in case it's not obvious, i'm definitely in the "Reply-To munging is evil" camp. destroying useful functionality in order to implement a minor convenience with the potential of doing great harm does not seem like a good idea to me. -- craig sanders <c a s @ t a z . n e t . a u (part time cyborg) ---- email "unsubscribe aussie-isp" to m a j o r d o m o @ a u s s i e . n e t to be removed. |
|