List header cancer (was: Lawsuits, Red Hat, yummy....)

Chris fj1200 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 18 14:20:42 EDT 2007


On 10/18/07, Ben Scott <dragonhawk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/18/07, Jeff Macdonald <macfisherman at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>   Au contraire contraire, please do not.  Abuse of "Reply All" causes
> >> List Header Cancer!
> >
> > Couldn't this be solved by the list setting Reply-To: to the list?
>
>   No.  Some MUAs still include all addresses if the "Reply All"
> function is invoked.
>
> > And yes, I know it considered bad ...
>
>   Some hate "Reply-To munging", some like it.  There's no consensus.
>
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml
>
>   A million years ago, this list took a vote, and the "harmful"
> faction won.  I'm really uninterested in repeating the debate unless
> there is significant evidence a change in opinion has occurred, and
> AFAICT, no such evidence exists.
>
> > Hmmm... if a message has multiple Reply-To's, why not have the MUA
> > reply to all of them?
>
>   RFC-2822 does allow multiple addresses to be specified in the
> Reply-To header, so I suppose list software could add to an existing
> Reply-To, rather than replacing it.  But that just makes the whole
> "How to handle list replies" picture even muddier, so I'm not sure how
> that helps.  And it still doesn't prevent List Header Cancer.
>
> -- Ben
>
> --
> DISCLAIMER: Everything I say could be a total lie.
> _______________________________________________
> gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
>

What is actually wrong with having the Reply To: as the list, after
all, that is where the message came from. (not originally, but in
essence, we all want to send a message to everyone, where is the harm
in having the reply go to everyone by default), and only when someone
feels that an individual reply is warranted, should they need to
change the reply to address?

Just a question looking for an answer, not  questioning list policy....



-- 
IBA #15631


More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list