Quantcast

Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?

Alain O'Dea
It looks like the list-serv for erlang-questions is leaving Reply-To  
blank instead of setting or overriding it to be "[hidden email]
" as I would expect. This has lead me on multiple occasions to reply  
to the poster directly instead of replying to the thread. I find it  
very confusing.

Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?

Lev Walkin


http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html


Alain O'Dea wrote:

> It looks like the list-serv for erlang-questions is leaving Reply-To  
> blank instead of setting or overriding it to be "[hidden email]
> " as I would expect. This has lead me on multiple occasions to reply  
> to the poster directly instead of replying to the thread. I find it  
> very confusing.
>
> Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?

Justin Sheehy-3
In reply to this post by Alain O'Dea

On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:11 PM, Alain O'Dea wrote:

> Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?

Yes.

Your mail client should allow you to choose who you are replying to.

-Justin


_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?

Alain O'Dea
In reply to this post by Lev Walkin
Interesting article. Thank you Lev. I had not realized the side-
effects were so severe, but upon review they make perfect sense. I  
will use Reply All and maybe even get at the admins of other lists to  
remove this reply-to munging.

On 10-Jul-08, at 10:59 PM, Lev Walkin wrote:

>
>
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
>
> Alain O'Dea wrote:
>> It looks like the list-serv for erlang-questions is leaving Reply-
>> To  blank instead of setting or overriding it to be "[hidden email]
>>  " as I would expect. This has lead me on multiple occasions to  
>> reply  to the poster directly instead of replying to the thread. I  
>> find it  very confusing.
>> Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?
>> _______________________________________________
>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?

Dmitrii Dimandt

On Jul 11, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Alain O'Dea wrote:

> Interesting article. Thank you Lev. I had not realized the side-
> effects were so severe, but upon review they make perfect sense. I
> will use Reply All and maybe even get at the admins of other lists to
> remove this reply-to munging.
>


Also try these:

Reply-to considered useful:
http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml

Reply-to still considered harmful, really:
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html


:)




> On 10-Jul-08, at 10:59 PM, Lev Walkin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>>
>>
>> Alain O'Dea wrote:
>>> It looks like the list-serv for erlang-questions is leaving Reply-
>>> To  blank instead of setting or overriding it to be "[hidden email]
>>> " as I would expect. This has lead me on multiple occasions to
>>> reply  to the poster directly instead of replying to the thread. I
>>> find it  very confusing.
>>> Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?

Jon Gretar Borgthorsson
I actually still prefer Reply-To being set.
The "Reply to all method" is flawed and in 99% of cases it forces extra work to do a simple thing.
The simple fact is on almost all mail clients(every single one I have tried) this has the effect that you reply to the mail list and 99% that is exactly what you want to happen.
Using "Reply to all" adds multiple addresses and I need to clear the senders email address because otherwise he would get duplicate emails. Which I think is just impolite plain and simple. After clearing the original senders email then one has to move the only email address you really want(namely [hidden email]) from CC to TO.

The effect is that in some cases it takes even longer to muddle around with the email address field than writing the email itself. 

The simple fact is that most people expect to write to the list when hiting reply. It's what usually happens on most mailing lists.

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Dmitrii Dimandt <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Jul 11, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Alain O'Dea wrote:

> Interesting article. Thank you Lev. I had not realized the side-
> effects were so severe, but upon review they make perfect sense. I
> will use Reply All and maybe even get at the admins of other lists to
> remove this reply-to munging.
>


Also try these:

Reply-to considered useful:
http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml

Reply-to still considered harmful, really:
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html


:)




> On 10-Jul-08, at 10:59 PM, Lev Walkin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>>
>>
>> Alain O'Dea wrote:
>>> It looks like the list-serv for erlang-questions is leaving Reply-
>>> To  blank instead of setting or overriding it to be "[hidden email]
>>> " as I would expect. This has lead me on multiple occasions to
>>> reply  to the poster directly instead of replying to the thread. I
>>> find it  very confusing.
>>> Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions


_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?

Samuel Tesla
Last I checked most mailing list software does not send a message to a recipient if they were already in the To:, Cc:, or Bcc: header. Or, at least most lists can be configured to have that behavior.

I'd be interested to know if you received two copies of this message, as I hit "Reply All" in my mailer (Apple's Mail.app).

-- Samuel

On Jul 14, 2008, at 3:54 AM, Jon Gretar Borgthorsson wrote:

I actually still prefer Reply-To being set.
The "Reply to all method" is flawed and in 99% of cases it forces extra work to do a simple thing.
The simple fact is on almost all mail clients(every single one I have tried) this has the effect that you reply to the mail list and 99% that is exactly what you want to happen.
Using "Reply to all" adds multiple addresses and I need to clear the senders email address because otherwise he would get duplicate emails. Which I think is just impolite plain and simple. After clearing the original senders email then one has to move the only email address you really want(namely [hidden email]) from CC to TO.

The effect is that in some cases it takes even longer to muddle around with the email address field than writing the email itself. 

The simple fact is that most people expect to write to the list when hiting reply. It's what usually happens on most mailing lists.

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Dmitrii Dimandt <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Jul 11, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Alain O'Dea wrote:

> Interesting article. Thank you Lev. I had not realized the side-
> effects were so severe, but upon review they make perfect sense. I
> will use Reply All and maybe even get at the admins of other lists to
> remove this reply-to munging.
>


Also try these:

Reply-to considered useful:
http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml

Reply-to still considered harmful, really:
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html


:)




> On 10-Jul-08, at 10:59 PM, Lev Walkin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>>
>>
>> Alain O'Dea wrote:
>>> It looks like the list-serv for erlang-questions is leaving Reply-
>>> To  blank instead of setting or overriding it to be "[hidden email]
>>> " as I would expect. This has lead me on multiple occasions to
>>> reply  to the poster directly instead of replying to the thread. I
>>> find it  very confusing.
>>> Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions


_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?

Alain O'Dea
No duplicates here. I'm sold on this. It is much better in retrospect. Command-Shift-R gives me Reply All on Apple Mail. I imagine a similarly simple shortcut exists in Evolution, KMail and Outlook. Not sure about Webmail, but you can subscribe to erlang-questions through Google Groups and avoid that aspect entirely.

On 14-Jul-08, at 7:35 PM, Samuel Tesla wrote:

Last I checked most mailing list software does not send a message to a recipient if they were already in the To:, Cc:, or Bcc: header. Or, at least most lists can be configured to have that behavior.

I'd be interested to know if you received two copies of this message, as I hit "Reply All" in my mailer (Apple's Mail.app).

-- Samuel

On Jul 14, 2008, at 3:54 AM, Jon Gretar Borgthorsson wrote:

I actually still prefer Reply-To being set.
The "Reply to all method" is flawed and in 99% of cases it forces extra work to do a simple thing.
The simple fact is on almost all mail clients(every single one I have tried) this has the effect that you reply to the mail list and 99% that is exactly what you want to happen.
Using "Reply to all" adds multiple addresses and I need to clear the senders email address because otherwise he would get duplicate emails. Which I think is just impolite plain and simple. After clearing the original senders email then one has to move the only email address you really want(namely [hidden email]) from CC to TO.

The effect is that in some cases it takes even longer to muddle around with the email address field than writing the email itself. 

The simple fact is that most people expect to write to the list when hiting reply. It's what usually happens on most mailing lists.

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Dmitrii Dimandt <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Jul 11, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Alain O'Dea wrote:

> Interesting article. Thank you Lev. I had not realized the side-
> effects were so severe, but upon review they make perfect sense. I
> will use Reply All and maybe even get at the admins of other lists to
> remove this reply-to munging.
>


Also try these:

Reply-to considered useful:
http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml

Reply-to still considered harmful, really:
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html


:)




> On 10-Jul-08, at 10:59 PM, Lev Walkin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>>
>>
>> Alain O'Dea wrote:
>>> It looks like the list-serv for erlang-questions is leaving Reply-
>>> To  blank instead of setting or overriding it to be "[hidden email]
>>> " as I would expect. This has lead me on multiple occasions to
>>> reply  to the poster directly instead of replying to the thread. I
>>> find it  very confusing.
>>> Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions


_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Is erlang-questions setting Reply-To properly?

Jeff Macdonald-4
In reply to this post by Samuel Tesla
2008/7/14 Samuel Tesla <[hidden email]>:
> Last I checked most mailing list software does not send a message to a
> recipient if they were already in the To:, Cc:, or Bcc: header. Or, at least
> most lists can be configured to have that behavior.

I _really_ wish that was a universal feature. It is nice this list does it.

--
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Loading...