gnupic: Re: [gnupic] Reply-to mangling
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] Reply-to mangling
From:
"Paul B. Webster VK2BZC" ####@####.####
Date:
20 Jul 2005 00:02:13 +0100
Message-Id: <1121814119.7964.138.camel@dads.W-med>
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:28 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> No, please don't.
My "take" - please *do*!
> Setting `Reply-To' is very annoying because it makes it very hard to
> reply privately.
Having looked at the situation, I must agree not on the first but on
the second point, however - so what?
> Another list that I'm on had `reply-to' set until too many people
> posted confidential stuff to the list by mistake.
But that was another list, not this. For that matter, just what sort
of list *was* that? As I see it, this particular list here, like
virtually all technical lists, is a *discussion* forum, where people
openly discuss concepts and - tell me if I am wrong? - *help* each
other. Were it a *solicitation*; a "lonely hearts" list, I could see a
point.
The simple fact is, sending a personal reply here - or on similar
lists - is a complete *rarity*, so the question is whether to make it
slightly more difficult for the rare situation, by making it immensely
easier and more reliable for the huge majority?
It is *extremely*, *massively* annoying to begin to reply to the list,
and then realise that one has to do the *very* thing of which Ian
whinges - cutting and pasting the address of the *list* into the
"destination" field - as I just now did myself, because I initially hit
"Reply-To", and having written most of the reply, I really don't want to
start again. (Even then that didn't work, Evolution did something
bizarre and it has taken me many more minutes to make another
"Reply-to-all", then cut-and-paste, remove all the addresses and
"post-to" garbage that I never wanted.)
And all that, presuming that you *realise* the mistake before sending,
in which latter case the reply is to all intents and purposes *lost*,
unless the recipient happens to notice that what he got (with the
"gnupic" or whatever header, and thus sorted onto whatever file has been
determined) was *not* intended for him alone, and deigns to point that
out. But I suppose it serves the purpose of keeping traffic down,
because people then tend to presume no-one cares. I know that's what I
thought the last time it happened.
Surely people on such a list as this understand design rules regarding
"defaults" - make the default action, the one that is desired in the
overwhelming *majority* of cases? A discussion list - is a discussion
list.
--
Cheers,
Paul B.
