[Wine]Setting reply-to list
wine-users at shemesh.biz
Fri Jun 25 00:37:31 CDT 2004
Matthew Frederico wrote:
>On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 15:09, Julian Hall wrote:
>>As I said in my last mail I am a newbie to Linux, although not to computers
>>having used abused etc for nigh on 20 years. I personally would prefer to
>>have the Reply-To set to the list, as all the other mailing lists I
>>subscribe to are. It seems, if you will pardon me, illogical to receive an
>>email from one source, only to click Reply and have it sent somewhere else.
>I second this. Even though I do have a "reply to list" feature .. This
>has often been the source of much wondering why my reply never got
>posted to the list...
Hmm, I think a short intro as to why Reply-To list is not set by default
is in order. From my experience in the past, this option causes more
pain than joy, and is generally a bad move. I'll also mention that
people who request this option almost always are the same people who
don't set up a mail filter to file mailing list messages into a
This is a summary of "http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html"
1. You already do have a "Reply to list" button in your mailer. It's
called "Reply to all". So you have two buttons. "Reply", which means
"Reply to whoever wrote the message", and "reply to all", which means
"Reply to the writer, and the list".
2. If Duan sets up a "reply-to" header, it means both buttons become the
same one. You are left with no way of replying only to the author. BAD
2.5 - consider how many operations you need to do in order to simulate
the alternative option. If there is no "reply to" and you want to send
message only to the list you will need to hit "Reply to all", and erase
the private emails included in the "to". If there is a "Reply to" and
you want to send a message only to the author you will need to copy the
author's email address (can one of the newbies here please explain to me
how you can do /that/ in Outlook? I know, but do you?), hit "reply",
delete the mailing list's address, and paste the author's address.
3. Consider the harm in case of a mistake. If there is no "reply-to"
munging, then in case of hitting "Reply" instead of "reply to", a
message meant to be public was sent in private by mistake. A tiny
annoyance for the receiver, but no real harm done. If there is
"reply-to", and a writer of a message meant to be private forgot to do
the above painful procedure, a message meant to be private is now
public. There is no backing up on that one.
4. The author may not even be contactable. Some people post with "from"
set to one address (say, their work address), but their "reply to" set
to the address at which they can actually read your reply. When the
mailing list overwrites that info, all contact info about the person is
lost, and there is no way to contact them.
So why do people who don't use filters like the "reply to"? Because
otherwise they get two copies of answers to mailing list messages. If
you use proper filtering (based on List-ID headers), you will get one
copy in the mailing list folder, and the second copy will be in your
inbox. To me, that is a good thing (I get personal replies to messages I
sent, plus a copy in the mailing list so the thread is not broken).
People who have improperly set up filters get two copies at the same
place, which is annoying.
In short, I think adding "reply-to" is a bad idea.
Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd.
More information about the wine-users