[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Editors
From: |
Tim Slattery |
Subject: |
Re: Editors |
Date: |
Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:39:47 -0400 |
User-agent: |
ForteAgent/7.00.32.1200 |
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> wrote:
>Tim McNamara writes:
>
>> Aarrgh, I forgot to send this to the list. I will never get used to
>> the goofy way in which the LilyPond mailing list operates, not having
>> the Reply-To header set to the list. It is the only mailing list I
>> have ever been part of that doesn't have this as the default.
>
>http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Elm, which this guy loves, is an ancient, text-based email client.
>Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer.
>People want to munge Reply-To headers to make "reply back to the
>list" easy. But it already is easy. Reasonable mail programs have
>two separate "reply" commands: one that replies directly to the author
>of a message, and another that replies to the author plus all of the
>list recipients.
I have *never* seen "reply to group" in any client I've worked with.
--
Tim Slattery
address@hidden
- Editors, Philippe de Rochambeau, 2013/06/25
- Re: Editors, Urs Liska, 2013/06/25
- Re: Editors, flup2, 2013/06/25
- Message not available
- Re: Editors, Tim McNamara, 2013/06/25
- Re: Editors, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2013/06/25
- Re: Editors,
Tim Slattery <=
- Re: Editors, David Kastrup, 2013/06/25
- Re: Editors, Joram Berger, 2013/06/25
- Re: Editors, Urs Liska, 2013/06/26
- Re: Editors, Martin Tarenskeen, 2013/06/26
- Re: Editors, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2013/06/25
- Re: Editors, David Kastrup, 2013/06/25
- Re: Editors, Wim van Dommelen, 2013/06/25