[lug] Re: More on Reply-To

[Peter Hutnick]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 06 June 2002 10:20 pm, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 07:20:05PM -0600, Peter Hutnick wrote:
> >reply-to munging it would be obvious to all that "reply" replies to author
> >and "reply all", uh, replies to everyone.  See how intuitive this is?
>
> Yeah, that's a common reason that's stated as far as why reply-to munging
> is bad.  However, I believe that people can and probably *SHOULD* remember
> that they're participating in a mailing list, not corresponding with a
> particular author.  See how intuitive that is?

No, I don't.  "The list" did not write the message.

Maybe I am working on a different mental model than everyone else, but I 
always thought "reply" and "reply all" were shorthand for "reply to author" 
and "reply to all recipients" respectively.

It seems to me that remembering that you are replying to a list would mean hit 
"reply all" under your argument.  IOW it seems like munging allows a user to 
*FORGET* that he is participating in a mailing list.

> In the end, by personal observation, I've found that setting a list to not
> be reply-to-list does *NOT* prevent people from making the mistake of
> replying publicly to something they want to reply to privately.  They're
> just so used to doing a group reply that it loses it's power...
>
> >use reply-to get their replies at the wrong address on munging lists. 
> > When I do notice a list is configured that way I often complain to the
> > list admin an often try to get others to as well.
>
> "Not your way" is not "the wrong way".  It's been kind of amusing that
> the "don't change reply-to" people can't conceive that people would like
> things any other way.

It is only your perception that "we" "can't conceive that people would like 
things any other way."  It is perfectly obvious that many people prefer 
reply-to munging.  How could you believe that I can't see that?  Or were you 
just setting up a straw man?

It is my opinion that pro-mungers take the position primarily because it is 
what they are used to.  Anti-mungers (again, IMO) take their position for 
rational reasons.  So, I wouldn't go as far as to say that munging is 
objectively "wrong", but I don't think it is the rational choice.

BTW, do you have anything to say about the loss of original reply-to headers?

- -Peter

- -- 
/"\ ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
\ /
 X   Get my PGP key at http://hutnick.com/pgp
/ \  6128 5651 6F23 EC17 6EBD  737D 960A 20E6 76CA 8A59
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9ADtRlgog5nbKilkRAmVBAJ43bkbcmHA5mLeRUQ4ArScwic2muACfQr0f
f28hZu5IEIf1Sd/DCBI/ZOU=
=Otjs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----