[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       sylpheed
Subject:    [sylpheed:21713] Re: Reply vs Reply-To-All: (was:...)
From:       "James K. Lowden" <jklowden () schemamania ! org>
Date:       2003-09-29 22:20:12
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:55:34 +0200, Godwin Stewart <gstewart@bonivet.net>
wrote:
> And Thus Spake Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com> (on Mon, 29
> Sep 2003 17:52:13 +0200):
> 
> > Maybe my original message got a bit out of sight: people in LKML
> > _want_ to be cc'ed on their threads.
> 
> And this is what struck everybody as "unusual". For my part, this is the
> first time I've heard of a list where participants aren't in favour of
> replying only to the list.

I'm subscribed both to lists that munge the reply-to header and lists that
don't.  There's a case for both theories.  Google for "Reply-To Munging
Considered".  

The anti-mungers e.g. LKML apparently, believe the list's benefit derives
from spawning off-list conversations, thereby furthering relationships
between individuals.  

IMO, that theory makes sense when the list is a nexis for people working
together on something.  For lists like this one, which is mostly to help
folks figure out how to do something, reply-to munging keeps all the
replies -- especially the answers -- in the open.  

--jkl

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]