Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
- From: Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:39:53 -0400
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 02:21:34PM -0500, Seth Goodman wrote:
Actually, no, the burden is not on us. It is really quite simple. When
The OP could have presented his request differently, but I don't think
a binary answer in the spirit of "love it or leave it" is particularly
helpful. The method of handling Reply-To: in this mailing list is in
the minority, and even if people believe it to be better, that puts the
burden of explanation on us. Having the question come up over and over
again, followed by a generally unsuccessful attempt to convince the
questioner that everyone else does it wrong, is the price of doing
things this way.
you join a group, you adapt to *its* norms and conventions. If you
don't like, then you are free to leave. Now, asking (politely) for an
explanation is usually not a problem. However, starting off with "this
is broken, it needs to change" is not usually welcomed unless you happen
to carry a great deal of influence in the group.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
- From: Joe Hart
- Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
- References:
- Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
- From: Joe Hart
- RE: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
- From: Seth Goodman
- Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
- Prev by Date: Re: post Header update probs with KDE apps
- Next by Date: Re: Woohooo! Dell + Linux
- Previous by thread: RE: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
- Next by thread: Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|