Lists Home |
Date Index |
actually it would limit the number of double replies to every post...
and i can't reply directly to some people like simon because of the
setup on the mail server he uses.
more to the point, the emails technically come from the mailling list,
and that's where i'd normally reply - it is a public discussion...
On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 03:33, Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
> Robin Berjon <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Rick Marshall wrote:
> > > couldn't we have the reply-to: on this list set to xml-dev
> > etc so that
> > > a simple reply click will send messages back. sometimes i don't hit
> > > reply to all, and sometimes i forget to delete all the cc users.
> > That's a permathread all over the net. Some people prefer it one way,
> > others another, and both sides will come up with smart but useless
> > arguments to show that the other side's approach is evil.
> In theory there could be one real advantage to always forging the
> reply-to (though AFAIK no mailing lists actually works this way): you
> don't need to expose the real mail addresses of the senders. If you
> really wanted direct replies to the senders along with the regular
> autogenerated mail the mailing list could build the replies using
> invisibly managed headers, possibly as an option via an extra cc record.
> Reply-to would reply to the list only, reply-to-all would cause some
> extra management at the mailing list to generate replies directly to the
> original sender(s). You could give digest readers, (or all readers for
> that matter) the option of always getting direct replies when they sign
> up. This would remove the ability to harvest mail addresses from mailing
> lists (though it wouldn't stop anyone from adding an e-mail address in
> plain text in the message)....