[lug] Re: More on Reply-To

[Sean Reifschneider]

On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 04:22:24PM -0600, Peter Hutnick wrote:
>Aaah.  Let's not plunge into a spiral of mis-features to correct other 
>mis-features!

I'll keep it short here, but I believe that lists which offer community
support should have the reply set to the list, encouraging continued
community participation as opposed to encouraging requests for private
one-on-one support.  See my message posted to the NCLUG list within the
last week when the list was suddenly changed to remove the "reply-to
munging" (the subject was "Reply-To preservation considered harmful").

>You probably wouldn't even think of such a thing if it weren't for the 
>negative side effects of reply-to munging by mailing list managers.

It would seem that with software so easily supporting the ability to remove
the munging, that it's best to enable munging and let those who would
prefer opt out...  If for no other reason that there doesn't seem to be the
converse option for "Hey, guess at what the reply-to should be for this
message"...

>I think the best thing is to 1. fight the good fight against reply-to munging 
>and 2. use "reply all" when in doubt and fix the to: line by hand.

So, are you implying that you would like to start a movement to convert the
BLUG list?  It *DOES* do reply-to munging, and I believe it should continue
to.

Sean
-- 
 I think the net needs some viagra today.  It's just not performing...
                 -- Mike Loseke, 2000
Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous <jafo at tummy.com>
tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD, Firewalls, Python