[MR] Help with Court etiquette?

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 02:00:47PM -0500, Anthony Bryant wrote:
> Joshua Thomas wrote:
> 
> > Gmail, Outlook and other full functional email browsers have Reply and 
> > Reply to all. Reply you just send it to the sender of the originial 
> > message. Reply to all you send it to everyone who was sent the 
> > original message. If your email provider doesn't have reply to all I 
> > would suggest moving to a platform that is fully functional. As by 
> > setting it the way the Rose is set actually gives you more options.

...and Reply to all means that the person who wrote the post you are 
replying to may get your reply twice, once via the list and once
directly.

I use mutt which can be told which email addresses are mailing lists so
it can alter its behavior productively. However, when faced with a list
that it doesn't know about, and a "reply to sender" setting (as this
list has), you are still stuck with a set of choices that either don't
do what you want or require gratuitous work.
> 
> Of the thirty or so groups that I subscribe to, only one or two have 
> this back-assward method of replying. It's VERY counter-intuitive, 
> judging by the standard methodology.
> 
This subject comes up here from time to time. It appears that the 
"Reply-to considered harmful" camp continues to carry the day. I do
agree with your position on the subject. 

The lack of a "Reply to" header is lauded in some circles and condemned
on others. I'm all for using "Reply to" to point replies to the list by
default.

yours,
Herveus
-- 
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
herveus at radix.net       | White Wolf and the Phoenix narrowwares
Bowie, MD, USA          | http://whitewolfandphoenix.com 
Proud member of the SCA Internet Whitewash Squad