[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Editors
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Editors |
Date: |
Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:56:24 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Tim Slattery <address@hidden> writes:
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>Tim McNamara writes:
>>
>>> Aarrgh, I forgot to send this to the list. I will never get used to
>>> the goofy way in which the LilyPond mailing list operates, not having
>>> the Reply-To header set to the list. It is the only mailing list I
>>> have ever been part of that doesn't have this as the default.
>>
>>http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> Elm, which this guy loves, is an ancient, text-based email client.
>
>>Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer.
>>People want to munge Reply-To headers to make "reply back to the
>>list" easy. But it already is easy. Reasonable mail programs have
>>two separate "reply" commands: one that replies directly to the author
>>of a message, and another that replies to the author plus all of the
>>list recipients.
>
> I have *never* seen "reply to group" in any client I've worked with.
It is usually called "Reply All" or "Followup".
--
David Kastrup
- Editors, Philippe de Rochambeau, 2013/06/25
- Re: Editors, Urs Liska, 2013/06/25
- Re: Editors, flup2, 2013/06/25
- Message not available
- Re: Editors, Tim McNamara, 2013/06/25
- Re: Editors, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2013/06/25
- Re: Editors, Tim Slattery, 2013/06/25
- Re: Editors,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Editors, Joram Berger, 2013/06/25
- Re: Editors, Urs Liska, 2013/06/26
- Re: Editors, Martin Tarenskeen, 2013/06/26
- Re: Editors, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2013/06/25
- Re: Editors, David Kastrup, 2013/06/25
- Re: Editors, Wim van Dommelen, 2013/06/25