Re: Reply to header

[Buddy Burden]

Hendrik,

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

Well, I'm glad I finally got to read that.  I've always wondered why 
people were so rabid about this issue.  Let's see what points this 
fellow makes ...

The Principle of Minimal Munging:  Geez, how old is this article?  I can 
hardly consider using a reply-to header "munging".

It Adds Nothing:  Completely ignores the entire point, which is that 
yes, there is a way to reply to the author only, and yes, there is a way 
to reply to both the author and the list (which is _completely_ useless, 
since it double-replies), but there is no way to reply to only the list.

It Makes Things Break:  Rhetoric.  It _does_ remove the ability to 
easily reply to only the author, true, but to refer to that as 
"breaking" something is merely inflammatory.

Freedom of Choice:  Now this _would_ be a good point, except that I 
thought what Suso was suggesting was that we all agree on doing 
something (or not).  So in this case the "fascist sysadmin" argument 
doesn't really apply.

Can't Find My Way Back Home:  Again, completely ignores the entire 
point.  If we _were_ (and I'm not saying that we will, or even that we 
should) to decide that it would be most appropriate for people to reply 
to the list rather than the author, then it wouldn't matter what the 
original author's reply-to header was.

Coddling the Brain-Dead, Penalizing the Conscientious:  Geez, how old is 
this article?  I don't think _anyone_ wants to implement the feature 
because their mail client lacks a "reply all" key.

Principle of Least Work:  Ummm ... that's exactly the same argument I 
would make about how much work it is to reply to only the list.  I also 
vote for doing what makes it easiest.

Principle of Least Surprise:  Well, that's _almost_ a good point.  But 
I'm not sure how many people would actually be surprised by the 
behaviour of replying to a mailing list sending a reply to the mailing list.

Principle of Least Damage:  Under "It Adds Nothing", the author says 
it's just as easy to reply to the list, but now he claims that it ought 
not be easy to reply to the list?  Hunh?

And in the End ...:  Isn't that the exact same argument as pointing out 
that mutt had to add a special command just to get around the fact that 
people refuse to do this?

All in all, I'm not impressed by this article.  But I'm glad I got a 
chance to read it.


                -- Buddy