Re: Editors

[Tim Slattery]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> wrote:

>Tim McNamara writes:
>
>> Aarrgh, I forgot to send this to the list.  I will never get used to
>> the goofy way in which the LilyPond mailing list operates, not having
>> the Reply-To header set to the list.  It is the only mailing list I
>> have ever been part of that doesn't have this as the default.
>
>http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Elm, which this guy loves, is an ancient, text-based email client. 

>Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer. 
>People want to munge Reply-To headers to make "reply back to the 
>list" easy. But it already is easy. Reasonable mail programs have 
>two separate "reply" commands: one that replies directly to the author 
>of a message, and another that replies to the author plus all of the 
>list recipients.

I have *never* seen "reply to group" in any client I've worked with.

-- 
Tim Slattery
address@hidden