[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Access control]]

[John Arbash Meinel]

Sabin Iacob wrote:
> Jeffrey Cunningham wrote:
> 
>>
>> This came through alright, but it shows up as being from you
>> personally. Go figure.
>>
>> How difficult would it be to add something like List-Id: bazaar-devel
>> to the list emails?
>>
>> --Jeff
>>
> 
> (funny, I replied an hour ago and my message didn't make it; oh well...)
> 
> as others have said, mailman does add List-Id (many people filter
> messages using it);
> 
> a reply-to: bazaar at lists.canonical.com header would be very useful (I
> tend to forget to change the address, or add a cc, and maybe I'm not
> alone), and would also remove the private/list confusion :)

Well, I don't think we want to bring up the "forcing Reply-To"
discussion. I don't know if we've had it on bazaar@ but I've had it on
more than one other mailing list.

The summary is that having the mailing list set Reply-To is generally
considered bad etiquette, because it overrides any existing Reply-To
that users might be trying to use.

Also, it wouldn't work for direct replies anyway. I think the
recommendation is to get "Mail-Followup-To" or something along those
lines. Though that isn't possible in all clients.

I've just learned to hit "Reply-To-All" rather than Reply by default.
And if you think about it, 90% of the time, you probably want to reply
to everyone involved in a discussion anyway.

John
=:->

PS> Here is the link I could google quickly:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html