Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 5 May 2011 13:35:22 -0700
From:      David Brodbeck <gull@gull.us>
To:        questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: rox-fm
Message-ID:  <BANLkTikTb0Ckbc7FM_Ka2WZa22TvVdbsZA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=Csvs+3C7-XJGUDn43Jzf-JNZZ4g@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <4DC1BEA8.6030108@gmail.com> <20110504224931.9ffd5682.dcdowse@gmx.net> <4DC1E23E.3020001@gmail.com> <20110505014556.50dcea0e.dcdowse@gmx.net> <BANLkTi=Csvs+3C7-XJGUDn43Jzf-JNZZ4g@mail.gmail.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Alejandro Imass <ait@p2ee.org> wrote:
> I wish someone could clearly explain why the reply-to field should
> ONLY have the mailing-list address, or at least have as the default
> address and not the other way around as it is here!

This is one of the all-time great religious wars of the internet, on
par with vi vs. Emacs and top-posting vs. bottom-posting.

See http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-harmful.html for one
side of the argument, and
http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.html for the other side.

My advice is to just accept that some mailing list administrators will
choose one side of this particular schism, and others will choose the
other.  Arguing the issue rarely gets anywhere.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTikTb0Ckbc7FM_Ka2WZa22TvVdbsZA>