[erlang-questions] 'reply-to' header in this mailing list

Robert Virding <>
Wed May 18 12:15:43 CEST 2011



I have so far studiously avoided getting in any of these discussions. I personally think that the current way is what best corresponds to my view of a mailing-list, it is a list mail addresses. When I post to the list I am really just sending to all the people on the list, it is a practical and simple way of keeping track of to whom I am sending. So a reply is a reply to the sender. This maybe a slightly naïve way of viewing a list but to me this is what a mailing-list is. 


If it were a forum, which I think it should be, then it would be a different matter. 

Robert 


----- "Michael Turner" <> wrote: 
> " I would like to understand *why* you don't judge this very simple solution to your problem as adeguate." 

> 
It's not just about me. It's about people who have never encountered this controversy before, because they're on normal mailing lists, and who write their first-ever message (and many more afterward) to *this* list. People who haven't even subscribed yet. 

> 
So, what do you propose? Something like this, perhaps: In the sign-on message for new subscribers to the Erlang mailing list, we include a message saying, "Get in the habit of always using 'Reply all' instead of 'Reply', for *all* of your e-mail correspondence, and after a while, you won't find it annoying in the least that this mailing list has 'Reply-to' set only to the address of the message sender, unlike other mailing lists you're on." 

> 
Or, if not that, then exactly *how* do you propose to change the world's habits? (Venture Capitalists have a term for this, when they encounter a business plan that's predicated on people giving up habits: "Boiling the ocean.") 

> 
When it's "purely logical versus human nature", human nature always wins. 

> 
-michael turner 
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Pierpaolo Bernardi <  > wrote: 
> 




> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:28, Alex Shneyderman <  > wrote: 
> >> According to your intuition, what should be the difference between 
> >> an action called "Reply" and another called "Reply to all"? 
> > 
> > In the case of this list (or any mailing list) I would expect reply to 
> > go to the list 
> > because I am aware of the fact that the discussion is to be conducted on 
> > that list. If I want to make sure that the email goes to the original author I 
> > will take extra care/effort to send the reply to that one person. 
> > 
> > And it is not just his intuition - my intuition tells me the same 
> > thing as his :-) 
> 
> OK. That would be my intuition, too, if there was only one action 
> available for replying to messages. But in every modern mail client 
> there are two possibilities, usually labeled something like "reply" 
> and "reply to all", so my question still stands unanswered. 
> 
> The people who complain about the correct behaviour could easily 
> obtain their desired behaviour if they just *don't* use the "reply" 
> command (Never. Not only for messages coming from properly 
> configured mailing lists), and *always* use "reply to all" (Always. 
> Not only for for messages coming for properly configured mailing lists). 
> 
> I would like to understand *why* you don't judge this very simple 
> solution to your problem as adeguate. Really. Mine is not a 
> rethorical question. 
> 
> P. 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ erlang-questions mailing list  http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20110518/e25da978/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list