[erlang-questions] Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?
Tue Jul 15 02:14:44 CEST 2008
No duplicates here. I'm sold on this. It is much better in retrospect.
Command-Shift-R gives me Reply All on Apple Mail. I imagine a
similarly simple shortcut exists in Evolution, KMail and Outlook. Not
sure about Webmail, but you can subscribe to erlang-questions through
Google Groups and avoid that aspect entirely.
On 14-Jul-08, at 7:35 PM, Samuel Tesla wrote:
> Last I checked most mailing list software does not send a message to
> a recipient if they were already in the To:, Cc:, or Bcc: header.
> Or, at least most lists can be configured to have that behavior.
> I'd be interested to know if you received two copies of this
> message, as I hit "Reply All" in my mailer (Apple's Mail.app).
> -- Samuel
> On Jul 14, 2008, at 3:54 AM, Jon Gretar Borgthorsson wrote:
>> I actually still prefer Reply-To being set.
>> The "Reply to all method" is flawed and in 99% of cases it forces
>> extra work to do a simple thing.
>> The simple fact is on almost all mail clients(every single one I
>> have tried) this has the effect that you reply to the mail list and
>> 99% that is exactly what you want to happen.
>> Using "Reply to all" adds multiple addresses and I need to clear
>> the senders email address because otherwise he would get duplicate
>> emails. Which I think is just impolite plain and simple. After
>> clearing the original senders email then one has to move the only
>> email address you really want(namely )
>> from CC to TO.
>> The effect is that in some cases it takes even longer to muddle
>> around with the email address field than writing the email itself.
>> The simple fact is that most people expect to write to the list
>> when hiting reply. It's what usually happens on most mailing lists.
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Dmitrii Dimandt
>> <> wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Alain O'Dea wrote:
>> > Interesting article. Thank you Lev. I had not realized the side-
>> > effects were so severe, but upon review they make perfect sense. I
>> > will use Reply All and maybe even get at the admins of other
>> lists to
>> > remove this reply-to munging.
>> Also try these:
>> Reply-to considered useful:
>> Reply-to still considered harmful, really:
>> > On 10-Jul-08, at 10:59 PM, Lev Walkin wrote:
>> >> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>> >> Alain O'Dea wrote:
>> >>> It looks like the list-serv for erlang-questions is leaving
>> >>> To blank instead of setting or overriding it to be "
>> >>> " as I would expect. This has lead me on multiple occasions to
>> >>> reply to the poster directly instead of replying to the
>> thread. I
>> >>> find it very confusing.
>> >>> Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> >>> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > erlang-questions mailing list
>> > http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions