-------------------------------------------------- From: <xavier.joubert@free.fr> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:22 AM To: "Miro Kropacek" <miro.kropacek@gmail.com> Cc: <mint@lists.fishpool.fi>; "George Nakos" <ggn@hol.gr> Subject: Re: [MiNT] Messages received twice
----- "Miro Kropacek" <miro.kropacek@gmail.com> a écrit :Do you have someone an idea why it's so great to have To: <sender> ? To my naive look there are only disadvantages.http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.htmlLong story made short: the current setup is the right one. It is your MUA responsability toprovide features to handle it right.
"``Reply-To'' Munging Considered Harmful" is written by a bitter geek many years ago. Most of the arguments used are no longer valid. Putting the blame on the MUA is easy, but not very constructive. Most people doesn't choose MUA based on how they handle mailing lists.
"Munging" Reply-To is not harmful, atleast not for this list. On the contrary, it makes life easier. One eksample is this mail I'm writing right now. Xavier made his reply the kosher way, by replying to all, thus sending three copies of his mail to two subscribers of this mailing list. Because I want to send my reply to the list only, I have to remove two recipients on the To-field, remove one recipient in the Cc-field and move the list address to the To-field. With "munged" reply-to this would never be needed. If I did like Xavier, this reply would now be sent in FOUR copies to three subscribers.
If I had the occasional need to reply to the original sender of the mail, I could simply choose "Reply to all" and remove the list adress. I would prefer to do this than having to edit the recipient addresses every time I want to reply to the list.
Jo Even