Re: [OSCOM] reply-to munging (or lack thereof) again.

On May 4, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:

> Martin Bähr wrote:
>
>> lazyness has nothing to do with it.
>> privacy has!
>> we had reply-to munging on this list.
>> it caused a few private mails that should not have gone to the  
>> list to
>> be sent here by accident.
>> the munging was removed on user request for user convenience: to  
>> make it
>> easy on the user to not make harmfull mistakes.
>>
>
> Actually, it hardly even matters why.  This is the way the majority  
> of technically-oriented mailing lists are set up.  Users need to  
> get used to it, making this list inconsistent with most lists just  
> causes trouble for all of us that are used to these lists.   
> Eventually reply-to-all will just flow off your fingers, and it  
> will be fine.  This whole topic is boring; when opinions differ  
> it's best to just follow convention, and this list follows convention.

You must be in a different world of e-mail lists than I am then.   
There are _no_ lists that I'm subscribed to (and that is a lot -  
mostly Apache lists) with the sole exception of general@oscom that is  
set up this way.  I much prefer replies go to the group - folks will  
only screw up once and post something personal to a list!

I go with the flow, though, and the consensus here seems to be that  
its bad for replies to default to the list.  So be it.  I generally  
check the To:/CC: headers before pressing send anyway.

     Erik