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

[Andrew Suffield]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 07:56:37AM -0700, Robert Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 03:05, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 02:59:17AM -0700, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> > 
> > > Not everyone uses mutt.  Pine, elm, Eudora, even Outlook Express are
> > > common mail clients, and none of them have a concept of "group reply".
> > 
> > that is complete and utter bullshit.  EVERY SINGLE ONE of those listed
> > mailers supports group reply.
> > 
> > stop lying to try and get your way.
> 
> I'm guessing he thought "group reply" was different from "reply all"
> which all of these have.  I thought so when I read the message, too.
> 
> Here's my humble contribution to this:
> 
> "User expectations" aside for the moment:  I think the default action
> for this mailing list ought to be "reply to list, but not to original
> sender."  Discussion should be on-list by default.  Agree?
> 
> With the current setup, if I do "reply" I get the original sender's
> email.  Not what I want.
> 
> If I do "reply all" I get the list AND the original sender's email. 
> That's not what I want, either.
> 
> I have to do "reply all" and then go and cut out the sender's email. 
> That's frustrating and annoying.

Both reply-to-sender and reply-to-group have clear and direct uses -
they're just not what you want here. You want an MUA with a
reply-to-list function.

Also, if Mail-Followup-To munging was working properly (which it is
supposed to be, and isn't) then your "reply all" button would probably
DTRT.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

pgpuW3g5EWD2f.pgp
Description: PGP signature