mail to individuals

[Odd]

Amedee Van Gasse (on Ubuntu mailing lists) wrote:
> On Thu, October 1, 2009 13:11, Odd wrote:
>> Amedee Van Gasse (on Ubuntu mailing lists) wrote:
>>> On Thu, October 1, 2009 06:51, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
>>>
>>>> If it is the list that is broken how is
>>>> it possible that some clients work and others do not?
>>> Hear, hear.
>>> I have not yet seen any counter argument against this.
>> The clients that work honor a flawed mail list setup.
>> The clients that don't, don't honor a flawed mail list setup.
> 
> Perhaps it is because I haven't fully mastered the English language, but
> I'm afraid that we disagree on the meaning of the word "arguments".

Perhaps. I think the list is flawed because it fails to include
a Reply-To: header. You don't.

> What I read, are just two statements, not backed up by arguments.
> 
> The following could be just as valid, without arguments, but with more
> technical details:
> 
> The clients that work honor the List-Post header.
> The clients that don't, don't honor the List-Post header.

Indeed. So lists should use the Reply-To: header which
every mail client support, afaik.

> The conclusion _could_ be that a list that uses the List-Post header, has
> a flawed setup, but that is illogical. There are still some arguments
> missing. Mr. Spock would frown. :)
> 
> 
> Anyway I prefer to talk about technically complete descriptions like a
> "List-Post header" rather than vague descriptions like "a flawed mail list
> setup".
> 
> A statement like "the mailing list setup is flawed" is a biased opinion.
> Just like the opposite, "the mailing list setup is correct" is also
> biased.

Yep.

> A statement like "the mailing list uses the List-Post header" is a neutral
> and factual observation.

Yep.

-- 
Odd