[Wylug-discuss] Uptimes

[Martyn Ranyard]

Quoting Peter Corlett <abuse at cabal.org.uk>:
> So senders are arrogant enough to think that their post is so vitally
> important that they have to send a second copy that bypasses list filtering.
> Because clearly I'm incapable of judging for myself how important traffic on
> a given list is. (Clue: wylug-* lists are right near the bottom of the list
> of stuff I check, because of the lousy S/N ratio.)

Not necessarily - if an MUA doesn't have a Reply-To-List option, then they are
doing the logical thing - they are Replying to All.

> Why expect me to look at the headers, when the sender clearly didn't bother
> to.

What makes you think they didn't?  They simply click reply-to-all.  The MUA
didn't but that's life - MUAs are imperfect because the RFCs were not
forward-thinking enough.

> >> Use a proper MUA then :p
> > There's too many, and without the whole reply-to munging debarcle, you end
> > up with more reply options than you can shake a stick at. Besides, I have
> > valid reasons for using imp.
>
> What's this got to do with the "reply-to munging debacle". I'm just asking
> people to engage their brain and look at where they're sending mail, rather
> than just blanket-bombing it.

No, you were criticising my choice of MUA, which is no worse than many, many
others, and the reason in most MUAs people click Reply to All is because the
Reply-To munging is not done on the discuss list.  Hence my mentioning of it.

--
Martyn Ranyard
ranyardm at lineone.net

----------------------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through Horde/IMP on Synergistic Software's Mail server
All opinions expressed are that of the author and do not necessarily
represent Synergistic Software's company policy.