Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] RFC: reply-to address default to LAD (was: Re: Reply-To)
From: Juhana Sadeharju (kouhia_AT_nic.funet.fi)
Date: Fri Mar 17 2000 - 09:33:50 EST
>>> case using reply-to field would be a global solution to a local problem.
>>
>>Uhhh.. I got two copies of this. You were saying?
>
>Right, and this is what the "Reply-To-Considered-Harmful" paper
>ignores. Sure, its normally easy to use the commands for
>"reply-to-author" and "reply-to-everyone".
Why it was *that* mail when I forgot to edit the headers.
Lets see: I will configure my mail program so that "r" sends only to
sender, "g" sends only to list, "p" sends to sender and to those at Cc,
"a" sends to list and to those at Cc but not sender, and "z" allows
me to edit the fields manually.
Now that's easy and up to my taste! (Is such configuring even possible?)
I agree that it is sometimes difficult to recognize who at Cc line
is on the list and who is not. Perhaps my mail program could be configured
to delete those addresses from Cc which are listed in my known-to-be-at-list
listing.
You know what! This is starting to look as fault of mail programs, not
mailing list programs. This is somewhat similar to web browsers which
checks file types from foreign host (I cannot tell how I want files to be
treated) or which follows Netscape branch of the webpages even there
would be both IE and text brances too for user to choose from. This kind
of naive (academic by-the-book) way to follow artificial rules just makes
harm.
Juhana
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Mar 17 2000 - 17:55:28 EST