Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update

[Mark A. Flacy]

>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Anderson <address@hidden> writes:
Robert> 
Robert> Look, the reply-to munging seems to follow a very simple idea
Robert> behind a mailing list that makes a lot of sense.  That simple idea
Robert> is that the "list" is a robotic person who receives email replies
Robert> and sends them back out to everyone on his list.  So if I someone
Robert> sends mail to the "list guy", he then sends them to me.  When I hit
Robert> "reply", why shouldn't it go to the "list guy"?  After all, I
Robert> signed up with the "list guy" to receive his emails.  That seems
Robert> perfectly natural and reasonable.  Now you're probably going to
Robert> quote RFC's and tell me "that's not how it works."  Well, who cares
Robert> - it's a perfectly natural way of thinking about it and the
Robert> resulting behavior is very natural and easy to understand.

If this discussion was taking place on the mythical gnu.arch.tla newsgroup,
the "natural" way of thinking about it would be quite different.  You'd
"followup" to the list or you'd "reply" via e-mail to the original poster
or both.  They are two different actions with two different intentions and
you wouldn't bind them to the same key would you?

I personally think that mailing lists are more like newsgroups than not.  I
also think this dead horse is pretty damned flat.

(I may switch to gnus to read this stuff in the future; right now I'm using
VM Personality Crisis to munge my reply headers the way that *I* like them.)

-- 
 Mark A. Flacy
 Any opinions expressed above are my own.  Any facts expressed above
 are, ummm, facts.
"This is more fun than should be legal."
 (Normally uttered sarcastically)