[erlang-questions] mailing list "reply to"

James Churchman <>
Fri Dec 3 03:42:10 CET 2010


YC : guess the PM is a fair point & for that reason maybe it is better that way then, thanks :-)

On 3 Dec 2010, at 02:22, YC wrote:

> Hi James -
> 
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:15 PM, James Churchman <> wrote:
> I guess this makes some sense that it does not send duplicate messages!
> 
> Before i was removing the other recipients every time with reply all
> 
> I can see how you would think mailing list should munge reply-to if you did not know how it works and end up modifying the recipients every time - I quite often wonder why people are in favor of munging, now I know a valid reason. 
> 
> Consider that the frustration felt for people who know how it works and want/need to send private messages when the reply-to is munged.  Few things feel worse than having a confidential private message to accidentally end up in a public list. 
>  
> Tho still it's unintuitive until explained especially as goggle groups, yahoo groups and all the many other malling lists i have still all behave in the opposite fashion with reply to list begin the default.
> 
> Their settings are wrong - and perhaps their admins also are unfamiliar with now mailing lists are supposed to work. 
>  
> i'd also say sending individual replies should be discourages by default, as everybody gets to learn from the replies to the list.. so even after understanding the reasoning this still feels wrong to me
> 
> The problem with reply-to munging is that it breaks private reply and often causes people to send a completely private message inadvertently to the public.  The concept of discouraging private reply for learning is overrated - people private message because they have a reason to.  If they pm for no reason they'll learn quickly that for many that's considered poor etiquette, since that effectively obligates the recipient's time when it's all voluntary. 
> 
> My 2 cents.  Cheers,
> yc
> 



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list