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

Parnell Springmeyer <>
Wed May 18 17:05:20 CEST 2011

Hash: SHA1

Um, isn't it client specific and not list specific? Every list I've been
a part of has a broad reply. So if I send a reply to
 with the "Re: [erlang-questions] 'reply-to'
header in this mailing list" subject it goes to everyone on that list.

If I do a wide reply (Emacs: Shft-f) it will send the reply message to
the specific person I'm replying to /and/ it will send it to the list
(as is happening with this email).

I can also send just the reply to the list, or just a reply to the
specific person. They are just different commands.

As it stands, the mailing list does exactly what I expect it to. Maybe
your software is what's not living up to your familiarity/intuitive

Michael Turner <> writes:

> Does anyone have any statistics on this question? That is, what
> percentage of mailing lists "do it wrong"? It's counterintuitive to me
> that  a "reply" on this mailing list is only to the individual. "Reply"
> is "Reply to the list" on every other mailing list I'm currently on,
> and on almost every mailing list I can remember being on. But perhaps
> my lifetime mailing list membership doesn't approach statistical
> significance.
> Although it may get me accused of "blindly following the herd," let me
> assert it anyway: arguments from "intuition" in commonly used software
> interfaces only work when you have statistically significant user
> support for them, not some purely formal, rule-based argument for your
> *personal* intuition. What's "intuitive" to one person may be
> counterintuitive to many. As pointed out long ago, "intuitive equals
> familiar":
>   http://www.asktog.com/papers/raskinintuit.html
> And, as pointed out even longer ago, "a foolish consistency is the
> hobgoblin of small minds." (Emerson.)
> Perhaps to some people, a mailing list is like a noticeboard in a
> mostly-empty hallway. My mental model of a mailing list corresponds
> more closely to a conversation in a classroom. When you reply to an
> open question or comment in such a context, you cannot help but be
> heard by more than one person; most likely you'll be heard by everyone
> in the room. You actually have to make a special effort (i.e., lean
> over and whisper in an ear, or pass a note) to be sure that your reply
> is private. I think this corresponds pretty closely to the intuition of
> the average mailing list user. But erlangeurs may be different, I don't
> know.
> -michael turner
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Richard O'Keefe <>
> wrote:
>     On 18/05/2011, at 3:07 AM, Alexander Krasnukhin wrote:
>     > Yes, yes. I've got this. People from telecom will always rely on
>     standards instead of people expectations. Good. Right.
>     Understandable.
>     That sounds a bit sarcastic.
>     The thing is that the Erlang mailing list behaves *EXACTLY* the way
>     I expect
>     a mailing list to work.
>     I expect "Reply All" to reply to everyone on the list.
>     I expect "Reply" to go just to the author.
>     I expect it to work the way mailing lists always used to work.
>     The standard in this case is not arbitrary, but part of a coherent
>     design to ensure a straightforward user experience.
>     _______________________________________________
>     erlang-questions mailing list
>     http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

- -- 
Parnell "ixmatus" Springmeyer (http://ixmat.us)
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list