[LAU] Reply to

[david]

S. Massy wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 03:52:25PM +0200, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
>> On 08/09/2011 03:11 PM, Goran Mekic wrote:
>>> Can you, please, set Reply To: to go to the list, not the sender,
>>> please? It's a trivial change, and I can't count the number of times
>>> I've sent my reply to sender, not the list. Thanx!
>> 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.
>>
>> Also:
>> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>> http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
> The philosophy may or may not be right. All I know is that I've had more
> problems mistakenly replying privately when intending to reply to the
> list than the other way around. Anyway, if we're to leave reply-to
> alone, listservs probably shouldn't modify the subject line either.
> 
> Cheers,
> S.M.

Proper email threading isn't done using the Subject line, it's done 
using message headers that identify the specific message it is in reply 
to. Unfortunately, the vendor of a very popular mail client broke THAT 
in their mail clients ...

As usual with anything software related, it's probably better to do 
things mindfully than rely on acquired neuromotor reflex.

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