On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 01:17:36PM -0600, Mike Miller wrote:
>
> How many of one type of error should I prefer to one of the other kind?
> Accidentally not sending to the list is happening a lot.  Accidentally
> sending to the list usually isn't a problem.  When people reply to a TCLUG
> message with something they don't want the list to see, they usually take
> special care not to send to the list.  I know I do.

Yes, accidentally sending to list doesn't happen much now, but it
will likely happen more if this change is made. For this list I
agree that it is unlikely that anything truly nasty will happen
from this accidentally sending to list.  The net result will
likely be lowering the sginal to noise ratio of the list and
scaring a few embarrassed would be list members away. Like I
said in another email, I think that we will get more accidental
replies to the list than we currently get accidental replies not
to the list.

> Keeping things as they are does not prevent people from accidentally
> sending to the list.  It is easy to do that -- just use "reply to all"
> accidentally and you've done it.  You can't protect us from that.

Right. Or if your email program doesn't have a "list-reply"
function, you can use your current "reply to all function". Since
"reply to all" is conceptually close to "list-reply", I don't see
the problem.  Yes, some people might get an ocassional duplicate
message, but that happens under the current system too.  If you
don't like duplicates, you set your filters accordingly.

> As it is, I cannot reply only to the list.  I'm using Alpine.  My options
> are Reply to All or Reply to Sender.  When there is a Reply-To, I have
> another option, which is to reply only to the Reply-To address.  I like
> having more options.
>
> One problem is that some people set "Reply-To" when they send their
> messages to the list.  I don't like that because I want to reply to the
> list, so it would help me if the list would overwrite their Reply-To with
> the list address.

But if the list break the Reply-To header, then you cause
problems for people who have valid reasons for setting the
Reply-To. I still don't get why you don't just default to "Reply
to All" for list if you don't have list-reply. It seems to be
fairly common behavior on the lists that I am subscribed to.


-- 
Jim Crumley                  |Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List
(TCLUG)
Ruthless Debian Zealot       |http://www.mn-linux.org/
Never laugh at live dragons  |
~