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

[Samuel Tesla]

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 erlang-questions@REDACTED)  
> 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  
> <dmitriid@REDACTED> 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 "erlang-questions@REDACTED
> >>> " 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
> >>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> >>> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > erlang-questions mailing list
> > erlang-questions@REDACTED
> > http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20080714/e60da1c7/attachment.htm>