[sf-lug] Ubuntu release ("back on-list" sub thread)
Ernest De Leon
edeleonjr at gmail.com
Sun Apr 27 16:31:44 PDT 2008
Your argument makes sense if-and-only-if you assume that the mailing list as
a whole is not the sender and intended recipient. Since we sign up to a
list for the purpose of composing mail to a single address and having it be
sent to all others on the list, my intended recipient is the the list
address, not an individual. Logically, if an email lands in my inbox from
the list (address) when I hit reply, I intend for it to go back to the list
(all inclusive.) If I wished to email someone off list for any reason, I
would grab their address from the header and compose the message
separately. How you have the list configured and what you believe about
that configuration are your prerogative since you run the list, but being
that every single other list that I am a member of does not subscribe to
your opinion of how a list should run, it would seem that your opinion is
the 'odd one out,' so to speak. It really doesn't bother me so much as I
usually remember to hit the reply to all button specifically for this list,
but sometimes I don't...which inevitably causes you more work than
necessary. Maybe the issue is more about convenience and convention than
possible 'ruined lives' or whatever else comes out of mis-guided bad emails.
I will agree with you on one point, however....the ill effect of
auto-responders etc does wreak havoc when configured the common way.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Quoting Ernest De Leon (edeleonjr at gmail.com):
> > This is something I have wondered about....why when using reply, it only
> > rick's address, and reply all puts in that of the list...other lists
> that I
> > am on have the list email address as the default 'reply to' address.
> > Is there a way to fix this?
> 1. The "Reply" command reaches just the sender.
> 2. "Reply-to-All" reaches the sender plus his/her other addresses.
> You should always use Reply-to-All when responding to ongoing mailing
> list threads. Use Reply _only_ when you have some compelling reason to
> depart from the mailing list into private mail (and then please do
> explain your sudden insistence on having a private discussion with
> someone who thought he/she was participating in a public one).
> Individual MUAs (Mail User Agents, i.e., user e-mail programs) will
> differ in the names they give to those two reply modes.
> My headers on this posting (above) demonstrate the legitimate,
> RFC-specified, use of the Reply-To: header, like this:
> Reply-To: rick at unixmercenary.net
> That says that I request that any direct replies to me as sender should
> go to an alternate mailbox. One of the _lesser_ drawbacks of munging
> ("forcing") the field to perform an unintended role at the mailing list
> manager level is that it interferes in the field's legitimate function.
> It also has (much) worse drawbacks.
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
Ernest de Leon
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - A common 18th Century sentiment
voiced by Benjamin Franklin
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his
government." - Edward Abbey
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -
Edmund Burke, English statesman and political philosopher (1729-1797)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sf-lug