From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OUbLA-0002wh-3t for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 08:11:16 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 27B471C0B2; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 08:10:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f53.google.com (mail-ew0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6FBD1C0B2 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 08:10:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so1137923ewy.40 for ; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 01:10:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=O/qve/smLZnNcUuSFYBCuL0/70ChOfuE2YlJ+YI+mG4=; b=goGqZN75QezQtshPFr7N6lTi6RTc/IJwtz+k5okP7XxjXBAaIcgQANBCBsYXMkPzLB Ur564ygFp7mQv3h3inn028X6twEb7Oy3bjD7CkSQf/pTfoxFW+eII9kv/3tor2J/nXxH mGSlz8j4JADpFhLDR+bSjQPEfAAvJmuVeqRPc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=QJO6jE5z8roBMTU1rJ0hU8dKNet+BNJ3++VOoYypjHFFy6rcRQMJbBhhyA28oR8PUs CVzqLBOoXNEZdmwfwUy3CRD30yRZ6oXsRmVFjfWcDLiwZsB6/xPXGHDpzRCE97vlJvtP /1xWy2O0nRktVGYRep9e0BtgeAg0M+goyg9Ao= Received: by 10.213.101.8 with SMTP id a8mr3528628ebo.44.1278058246070; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 01:10:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nazgul.localnet (dustpuppy.is.co.za [196.14.169.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v59sm3293315eeh.10.2010.07.02.01.10.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 02 Jul 2010 01:10:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Mailing list policy on reply Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 10:07:32 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.34-ck-r1; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Nicolas Sebrecht References: <20100702005433.GK9344@vidovic> In-Reply-To: <20100702005433.GK9344@vidovic> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201007021007.32828.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 02f385c9-5854-418e-ab06-2a029d84067f X-Archives-Hash: 285c5cc1a77e482d81b924002fc11e36 On Friday 02 July 2010 02:54:33 Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm often stucked by the current policy in this mailing list changing > the 'Reply-To' header to the mailing list address. Most mailing lists I > use don't do that. > > It is usually better and prefer the "answer to all" policy as it permit > to be notified of an answer without having to track the whole mailing > list. > > What do you think about changing of policy? We have been over this and over this and over this endless times over the past 5 years. For every stated reason why reply-to munging is considered harmful there is an equal and opposite reason why it isn't. And every time we discuss this we just leave the system as is. You should learn to deal with it. There is no correct answer. There is only an awareness of how the list you are using works. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com