[ale] Regarding replies to the list...

[Dow Hurst]

I prefer the current behavior as I am putting less work into replying. 
 A simple click on the reply button gives me what I've had to create 
before.  I hate the old behavior as every reply would require the 
typing/selection of ale at ale.org.  Also, to simplify my replies I would 
just leave the individual's email in place instead of deleting it, so 
each poster I replied to would receive TWO emails rather than just one. 
 I got that as replies to my posts as well, and hated having to delete 
the replies.  I use Mozilla and threading to display/sort the emails. 
 So, I would prefer to keep the current behavior.
Dow

PS.  My opinion on this is very strong so rates many votes. ;-)   Just 
kidding around!

Geoffrey wrote:

> Michael D. Hirsch wrote:
>
>> On Sunday 08 December 2002 01:08 pm, Fletch wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>>
>>
>>
>> I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen this referenced as if 
>> it were gospel.  I find it thoroughly unconvincing.
>>
>> IMHO, if the purpose of a list is to promote a community (as I think 
>> this list does) then replies should default to the list.  If not, and 
>> the preference is for replies to the sender, the set reply to the sender.
>>
>> There is a technical problem with reply to the list and that is that 
>> it may be hard to find some people's return address, and so it will 
>> be difficult to write to them individually.  I think this is pretty 
>> rare, nowadays.
>
>
> For me this is the most convincing reason.  Basically, you very likely 
> are could change the intent of the original poster.  For example, say 
> I send an email from my work addr, but I want responses to go to my 
> home address.  There's no way for that to happen if the reply-to is 
> munged.
>
> On the other side of the issue, I guess one could consider that the 
> list is the actual poster since the original poster sent it to the 
> list and the list is then actually sending it to everyone else.  Damn, 
> I'm starting to convince myself. :)
>
> For what it's worth, I think we've beat this one to death.  It's not 
> an issue I'll lose sleep over so I'd suggest a quick vote via email 
> and go with the crowd.
>
> What do other's say?
>
>>
>> There is a second reason to have reply to sender--it might cut back 
>> on the number of stupid, off-topic, political discussions that drag 
>> on forever and don't contribute to the general Linux knowledge.  Even 
>> this worthy goal isn't sufficient to make me vote for reply to sender.
>
>
> I agree this is not a sufficient reason for such behavior.
>
>>
>> --Michael
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org
>> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>
>>
>

-- 
__________________________________________________________
Dow Hurst                  Office: 770-499-3428
Systems Support Specialist    Fax: 770-423-6744
1000 Chastain Rd., Bldg. 12
Chemistry Department SC428  Email:dhurst at kennesaw.edu
Kennesaw State University         Dow.Hurst at mindspring.com
Kennesaw, GA 30144
*********************************
*Computational Chemistry is fun!*
*********************************


_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale