REQUEST: Polling PWS Use
lex at cc.gatech.edu
Tue Jun 30 09:34:46 UTC 1998
And *I* prefer the opposite :) Mainly because changing Reply-To:
overwrites any Reply-To: that the original author had. I'd rather
have the choice and hit either R or F as appropriate, and possibly
send someone an extra copy of the message, than risk a situation where
I can't reply to the author at all.
Furthermore, with the munging you can't tell the difference between
reply-to-author and reply-to-list at all; thus it is easy to reply to
the list by accident, potentially posting information you only meant
to send to the author individually.
For a quite long rant *against* reply-to munging, check out:
I guess not everyone will be happy until there is a special mail
header that specifies the address to reply to address for the mailing
list the message is on, if any. I believe there is such a header
proposed (Followup-to: ?) and implemented in certain mail readers, but
I can't find a reference at the moment....
Jarvis, Robert P. writes:
> For what it's worth I prefer lists which default to replying to the
> 99+% of the time I want my replies to go to the list, and it's a real
> aggravation to have to remember to change the 'To:' line.
> Bob Jarvis
> The Timken Company
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Bijan Parsia [SMTP:bparsia at email.unc.edu]
> >Sent: Monday, June 29, 1998 12:43 PM
> >To: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> >Subject: Re: REQUEST: Polling PWS Use
> >Whoops, that was supposed to go to Mark, not the list.
> ><sigh> The PWS list defaults replying to the author, and the Squeak list
> >defaults replying to the list. Any hope that we can have them synched in
> >this respect?
> >Bijan Parsia.
More information about the Squeak-dev