[erlang-questions] Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?

Alain O'Dea <>
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:
>> http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml
>>
>> Reply-to still considered harmful, really:
>> http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
>>
>>
>> :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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  
>> Reply-
>> >>> 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
>> 
>> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> 
>> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> 
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20080714/e12a4f3d/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list