Re: Replies to the list

[Jan Kohnert]

David Rogers schrieb:
> * Michael Welsh Duggan <address@hidden> [2010-08-30 18:04]:
> >Tim McNamara <address@hidden> writes:
> >> Is there a reason that the reply-to header is not set for the mailing
> >> list?  
> >
> >Yes, there is a reason.
> >
> >http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> >http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.txt
> 
> The logic at those links is impeccable but irrelevant.

Well, it's not. There *may* be reasons replying just to the OP (such as 
private statements), as well as there *may* be reasons to reply both, the list 
and the OP (what whould be reply-to-all; the poster does not need to read the 
list he was posting (as ist is often so in the linux-kernel lists), but the 
public might be interested in the answer). Normally you just want reply-to-
list.

That are mail standards since 20+ years, if a MUA doesn't get it right, it's 
not the fault of the list. ;)

-- 
MfG Jan

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.