[LAU] Reply to

[david]

Gwenhwyfaer wrote:
> On 09/08/2011, Thorsten Wilms <t_w_ at freenet.de> wrote:
>> The other way round (list instead of just sender) is worse, so making it
>> a clear decision to use Reply-to-list instead of Reply(-to-sender) is of
>> benefit. Clients with no or not obvious enough Reply-to-list are broken.
> 
> They may be broken, but they are probably also popular - Gmail, for
> example. Sorry, but I'm not going to change my mail client for one
> list, and I doubt many people are; and when it's a list like this one,
> which is targeted at end users who may not care very much about
> anything but getting music made, dogmatism on this point is a
> user-hostile position.
> 
> Not that I necessarily disagree with the choice. If you want to reply
> to list, reply-to-all does it, and that's available on just about any
> mail client anywhere; whereas if reply-to-list were the default, you
> need to cut & paste the individual's name. It's the use of an
> ideological position to defend the choice, when there is a rational
> non-dogmatic argument easily available, that pisses me off.
> 
> (What I'd prefer to see is the option on the user page, so that those
> who want to reply to list by default can tick the checkbox and do so,
> and those of us who have got used to hitting reply-to-all or have
> clients with reply-to-list functionality can carry on as before.)

That would be cool, but might require rewriting the list server software.

-- 
David
gnome at hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community