This Mailinglist

[Simon Ekstrand]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 03:03:08PM -0500, Eric Dunbar wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:59:46 +1000, CB <ubuntu-users at crispin.cb-ss.net> wrote:
> > Simon Ekstrand wrote:
> > 
> > >My only reply in this semi-religious thread.
> > >http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> 
> Some not-so-very-convincing arguments!

I disagree, I'm sure you will also once you've sent enough private replies
onto lists due to reply-to being set.

> Having skimmed the rest of the posts it seems the majority of people
> are in support of the SENSIBLE (given what the overwhelming number of
> lists are) reply-to-list default.

Huh? I see the exact opposite. Out of the 31 lists I'm currently
subscribed to exactly two force a reply-to header.

> PS Simon Ekstrand, how come your e-mail results in reply-to-list as
> being the default whereas the other posts require reply-to-all to post
> to the list (and clutter individuals' mailboxes with extraneous
> e-mails)?

I have no idea, maybe your mailer was more convinced by the arguments
than you were. :)

And those posts that 'clutter individuals' mailboxes with extraneous
e-mails' are quite valuable on high latency lists, they enable people to
keep conversations running quickly even with list delays of several
hours. Procmail is your friend, it can filter out duplicates. But that's
a completely different discussion and one that shouldn't be brought up
again.

-- 
Simon