list-admin :: default to 'reply-to' the list ?

[Rob Munsch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ken Snider wrote:
> Rob Munsch wrote:
> 
>> Thunderbird:
>>
>> 1) hit reply-all
>> 2) doubleclick the non-list address
>> 3) quickly tap Delete twice
>> 4) remaining line is the list, click twice to make it "to" instead of
>> "cc"
>>
>> result: one single email, which you are reading now.
> 
> And again I ask the same question - how is it beneficial to have the
> default response characteristic of the list require this effort?
> Regardless of the ease at which the action can be performed, does it
> make sense to perform it every time if there is no benefit to the
> default case outside of ideology?

Dude, it took you more time to type that than it takes me to make the
minor, speedy little change to the To: fields.  It doesn't matter;
that's the benefit.  If you try to enforce something one way, people
will deviate t'other, and you will STILL be dealing with outliers; i
respectfully submit it *doesn't matter*, it's going to be run the way
the list manager thinks it should be, and may it be the most awful thing
to happen to you.

> And, the very fact that there *are* lists
> configured this way would suggest that, in some cases at least, this
> discussion *has* gone somewhere, no?

Huh? No, as here, the list manager sets it up as he sees fit.  You
assume they all start off like this, and people argue it into reply-to..? :D

> Actually, there is one: RFC 822 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html).
> Perhaps you've heard of it? Relevant excerpt:

> include the address of that service in the "Reply-To" field of all

yah, it calls it a "somewhat different use," which even in the dry
language of an RFC sounds like "we dunno about this, man."  I'm not sure
it outweighs the Mantra of Ten Reasons originally quoted.

but really, most importantly, nothing outweighs the list manager.  I
don't much care either way; i sub to lists that do it either way.  My
only point was that
1) the LM will do what he, she, or they darn well please,
1a) i don't see it affecting me much either way,
and
2) while making one's feelings known and one's vote on the topic s'all
well and good, it's really much ado about very little and see 1a above
and probably not worth much aggravation over.

- --
Rob Munsch
Solutions For Progress IT
www.solutionsforprogress.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFSOGhBvBcJFK6xYURAuWQAJ93w5uT0789Db4DJ4KBpjcJswTbGwCeLEdY
626bwJ14Mugf2R8UMAWjXh4=
=hNbP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----