[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert upd
From: |
Andrew Suffield |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update |
Date: |
Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:00:41 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
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
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Robert Collins, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Robert Anderson, 2003/08/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Robert Collins, 2003/08/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/21
- Message not available
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Miles Bader, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Ganesh Sittampalam, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Robert Collins, 2003/08/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update,
Andrew Suffield <=
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Tobias C. Rittweiler, 2003/08/19
Message not available
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Ganesh Sittampalam, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Jonathan Walther, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Tom Lord, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Miles Egan, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Tom Lord, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Miles Egan, 2003/08/23