In a message dated 2/14/2004 5:18:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at dd-b.net> writes: > Paul Echeverri <gomi at pollywog.com> writes: > >> For some reason, preserving the 'functionality' of >> reply-to:all, so that one gets duplicates of all messages >> (since reply-to:all sends to both the list and the >> individual), is considered the Correct Way. It's >> really best not to worry about it, grit your teeth, and >> hand-write the headers every single freaking time you >> reply, so as to make it behave properly. > > Or use a mail program that supports the RFC 2369 header > fields for mailing list commands, or one that supports > "reply to recipient", or one which can be configured > per-list for what reply defaults to locally (so at least > you only have to do it once). With this many alternatives > already available, it seems excessive to throw away the > ability to reply to the sender (which is what putting in a > reply-to to the list does for most programs). Some of us poor souls are Not Allowed to use third-party mail readers. And it almost sounds as if you're saying everyone has to use a fully standards compliant reader for the sake of people who aren't using one. > Oh, and there's no need to hand-write the headers, just > *delete* the entry for the original sender (much quicker > and eaiser than entering the list address by hand). True, but some people on the list keep putting the list address in the CC: field, so you have to delete and cut and paste. It's not hard, but it's not quite trivial either. I've been on this list since nearly the beginning, and only twice have I ever wanted to send a private response to a list post. The first was explicitly requested, and the second was a query whether the post sent to me was intentionally private or not (it wasn't). David, could you please take a look at www.gmane.org? I honestly think enabling that for this list would make everyone happy. Heck, I suspect I could enable it myself and no one else would even notice. --KG