Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 13:35:22 -0700 From: David Brodbeck <gull@gull.us> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rox-fm Message-ID: <BANLkTikTb0Ckbc7FM_Ka2WZa22TvVdbsZA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=Csvs%2B3C7-XJGUDn43Jzf-JNZZ4g@mail.gmail.com> References: <4DC1BEA8.6030108@gmail.com> <20110504224931.9ffd5682.dcdowse@gmx.net> <4DC1E23E.3020001@gmail.com> <20110505014556.50dcea0e.dcdowse@gmx.net> <BANLkTi=Csvs%2B3C7-XJGUDn43Jzf-JNZZ4g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Alejandro Imass <ait@p2ee.org> wrote: > I wish someone could clearly explain why the reply-to field should > ONLY have the mailing-list address, or at least have as the default > address and not the other way around as it is here! This is one of the all-time great religious wars of the internet, on par with vi vs. Emacs and top-posting vs. bottom-posting. See http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-harmful.html for one side of the argument, and http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.html for the other side. My advice is to just accept that some mailing list administrators will choose one side of this particular schism, and others will choose the other. Arguing the issue rarely gets anywhere.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTikTb0Ckbc7FM_Ka2WZa22TvVdbsZA>