Re: [xwt-users] Reply-To

On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 09:12:19PM +1000, David Crawshaw wrote:

> Is it just me, or does this list not have a reply-to address set?

It's not just you. This list does not have a forced reply-to.

> Should it not?

That's the kind of question that starts major flame wars ;)

The pro of forced reply-to:
* replies go to the list by default

The con of forced reply-to
* replies go to the list by default

The pro-reply-to crowd will be of the opinion that the purpose of a
mailinglist is to have discussions held on it, so encouraging the
discussion to remain on the list is a Good Thing, and people that want
to mail off-list should just type in the address of the recipient.

The anti-reply-to crowd will be of the opinion that if people want to
post to the list they should use group-reply instead of just reply, and
that that's how things are supposed to be according to the RFC.

Neither are absolutely right or wrong, IMO. I've doubly-read the relevant
part of the RFC a while ago as this debate flared up on another ML I
follow, and the RFC explicitly allows this; I just don't think the RFC
imagined MLs on the scale and importance we seem them today.

Some MLs I'm on use a mixed approach, and only set the reply-to header
if one wasn't already present in the posters message. I personally think
that's quite reasonable.

To get back to the topic at hand, I think the users list doesn't have
forced reply-tos since it's not a subscription-only list.
Non-subscribers posting a one-off question would generally not see the
reply with forced reply-to.

-- 
Emiliano