This Mailinglist - another vote for sanity

[Sean Miller]

Markus Kolb wrote:

>No. You don't get mail from the list because a mailinglist can not write
>mails. You get mails from all the people sending to a list.
>  
>
I get really bored with this sort of pedantic argument -- this is like 
saying "the sun does not rise, as the sun never moves -- it is the earth 
that spins"... the people send to the list, the software running the 
list forwards it to each member of the list... it originates with the 
sender and arrives in the member's inbox... the argument regarding 
"reply-to" has nothing to do with the mechanisms or where the mail 
originated, it is all to do with where replies should go by default. If 
people stop throwing in irrelevent arguments, especially when they are 
so patronising, things might start moving...

>For this mail I've used shift+L for a list-reply. When using MUAs not
>supporting mailinglists, I have to switch CC to To and have to remove
>the sender.  
>That's correct and the standard like writing your email
>adress behind a From:.
>  
>
Now this is exciting news... shall I post about how I started my 
computer up... you know, in order to send this mail I hit the "power on" 
button... who cares what key you used, or how you got around the 
limitations of this list?? This debate is nothing to do with your use of 
keys, this debate is about how a list should behave.... bully for you if 
you have software that allows you to reply to the list; many do not. And 
this is about whether the list should be configured in order to allow 
folks to send private messages to each other by default, or whether it 
should be a community where people just engage in community discussion 
by default without having to cut and paste addresses left, right and 
centre... regardless of whether that violates some 30-year-old purist 
"standard"

>Maybe you want to reply to all subscribed users of the list and for this
>you want to send your answer to the list again.
>Others want to answer only the sender and for this they do a simple
>reply. 
>  
>
Except that you're missing the point entirely... it is the *minority* 
that want to answer only the sender... the *majority* would want to 
reply to the list, and the list would want that to be the case so that 
we don't get threads that end unexpectedly without an answer. Why should 
it be that the people who want to answer to the list have to mess around 
cutting and pasting whilst the few who want to send a private reply just 
hit the "reply" button... this is all back-to-front!! It's mad...

>In case youu didn't get it after all these mails with the topic:
>This list will never set a reply-to because it is not the purpose of the
>reply-to field.
>  
>
What an arrogant statement -- 90% of mailing lists use the reply-to in 
this way, so clearly a lot of people in this world (including the mighty 
Yahoogroups, Googlegroups, Mailman (otherwise the option would not be 
there on Mailman, would it?) etc.) think this is a valid "purpose"...

>Instead of writing here such stupid wishes you should better create
>wish-reports in bugzilla of Mozilla and Thunderbird or of whatever MUA
>you use.
>  
>
No, you should go and see a therapist about your attitude mate! You are 
*so* patronising, and it is unnecessary. This "I am right, so all you 
thickos should stop posting" is not helpful at all.

Grow up!

Sean