[sf-perl] [list etiquette] [was] Re: Senior Perl...
fred at redhotpenguin.com
Mon Jan 4 17:01:47 PST 2010
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Randal L. Schwartz
<merlyn at stonehenge.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Stefan" == Stefan Amshey <parallax99 at hotmail.com> writes:
> Stefan> Oh sorry folks... forgot about reply-to-all.... *blush*
> which is why http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> is especially useful on one particular dimension:
> if reply-to is set, an error results in TOO MANY PEOPLE SEEING IT
Only the people on the list see it, so I fail to understand how that
can be too many. Mistakes do happen when sending emails to the list,
so I don't see a case here of reply-to being a major nuisance.
> if reply-to is not set, the error results in too few people, which can be
> remedied by resending.
This I will agree with, and I think is the primary reason for the
> Why in the world, in this day and age, does anyone still set reply-to
> for lists? Haven't we all learned the "wide reply" button in our
> mailer by now?
It's a matter of preference, and reply-to is the preference of the
current and past SF Perl Mongers.
This is laid out very plainly and clearly in the email you received
when you signed up for the list.
However, enough with the fire and brimstone :) Let's take a vote!
More information about the SanFrancisco-pm