Sigh...
wasting another junk of bandwidth with this bike shed discussion....
Granted, replying here is more annoying and less convenient compared to other lists -
as long as your MUA still does not provide decent support for mailing lists.
Down back from 1998 is RFC 2369 that defined additional headers for mailing lists to indicate important information
(e.g.how to post
messages). Thus, since then there is no excuse in hijacking Reply-To headers for use of simplifying mailing list
replies.
Even if for the last ten years most MUAs did not care adding support, there is no real reason for blaming mailing list
maintainers
that follow current standards for inconveniences caused by dumb MUAs. Especially if there is a reasonable workaround
(usingReplay All
- not ideal as any workaround but manageable).
Thus, *please* complain with the maintainer of your MUA to get the annoyance alleviated - or change your MUA.
As long as there are "friendly" list maintainers that abuse mail headers for overcoming deficiencies of some MUAs,
there will be no change for the better with MUAs.
Sorry I'm a bit fussy here,
but nowadays there is so much effort wasted with solving the wrong problems in making bad things bearable instead of
fixingthe
underlying reasons in the first place....
Rainer
Collin Kidder wrote
>
>>> I resent that you're trying to make this a personal thing.
>>>
>>
>> I was going to answer the rest of this email, then I realized that the
>> real problem was right here, and discussing anything else was dancing
>> around the issue and wasting time.
>>
>> You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal thing. It's personal
>> because you are the only one complaining about it. Despite the large
>> number of people on this list, I don't see anyone jumping in to defend
>> you.
>>
>> I'm not saying your problems aren't real, I'm just saying you're
>> apparently
>> the only person in this community that has enough trouble with them to
>> take the time to start a discussion. To that degree, the problem is
>> very personal to you.
>>
>>
>
> I was going to stay out of this but I'll jump in and defend him. The
> people on this list are so pedantic, so sure that their way is the only
> way that they absolutely rain nuclear fire down on anyone who dares to
> disagree. And you wonder why no one sprang to his defense???
>
> And, I do agree with him on this issue.
>
