Getting Started

[David Elliott]

On 2001.12.10 16:57 Oliver Sampson wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:30:04 -0500, David Elliott <dfe at tgwbd.org>
> wrote:
> 
> >On 2001.12.09 17:15 Oliver Sampson wrote:
> >[SNIP]
> >
> >> <ot>
> >> Why is the default behavior for the list to have replies go only to
> >> the sender and not to the list?
> >> </ot>
> >>
> >Because that would be ridiculous.  The only way to really accomplish
> that
> >is to add a Reply-To which means that it then becomes impossible to
> easily
> >reply directly to the author.
> 
> Well, it's not rediculous.  And it's not rediculous when you consider
> that *every other* list (save one) to which I'm subscribed has the
> list as the default reply-to.  The assumption is that if it's
> important enough to be asked in public, then the answer should be
> public also.  Why should the assumed answer be private?  I'm in a
> habit of replying to mail, not replying-all to mail, and when I reply
> to mail on this list, I find that I end up sending it twice.  (My
> assumption is that I'm a typical listserv subscriber.) Rarely, do I
> want to send an email off-list.  Do you (and the majority of the
> members here) send so many off-list emails in response to on-list
> emails that having the default reply-to for the list, not be the list
> itself?
> 
> Hey, it was just a question.
> 

Nah, more like a religious issue actually.  I really despise the Reply-To 
munging on some lists and much prefer the way that it is done on this list 
(which I believe is also how the Linux Kernel list works, last time I was 
subscribed to it).  The way I see it the reply-to header causes the mail 
client to do silly things and not including it allows more flexibility in 
the way messages are replied to.  But believe me, when I first joined the 
list I was in your shoes until I realized that Reply-All is really the way 
to go.

If you think about it, it makes sense:
Reply - i.e. Reply to the sender
Reply All - i.e. Reply to everyone (which is usually the sender and the 
list).

Furthermore, if you include a reply-to header then:
Reply - Replies to the list, not the sender
Reply All - Replies to the list twice, once because it replaces the 
senders address with the reply to, and another time because the list was a 
receipient of the message.
It also breaks anyone who actually uses a reply-to header for a legitimate 
reason.

This argument has been discussed before way back when on this list (or was 
it LKML?, I think it was this one).  Almost the exact arguments I am 
giving above were presented.  Believe me, I used to think like you did 
until I heard this argument, so maybe that'll set it in for ya.

[BIG SNIP]

> I find filtering on the List-Id: field to be the most accurate and
> unambiguous.
> 
> List-Id: Wine Developer's List <wine-devel.winehq.com>
> 
Hmm, Dunno how in the hell I missed that... maybe at one point that wasn't 
there so the only unique thing I could come up with was Sender:.

Anyway, this is the end of this thread by far, please send any responses 
directly using the Reply button as opposed to the Reply All button. :-P

-Dave