I was previously on a list where the reply-to was setup as it is on the
mysql list, with the originator receiving a response rather than list. It
ended up that that setting was the default, and had not been changed when
the list was setup.

Is there a good reason why the reply-to is setup as it is on this list?

I forget to change the destination address for most every email I write, I
would guess I am not alone, and I do not think that this is good for the
list.

Some good advice, applying to both mailing lists and businesses:
Always reply-to-all, unless there is a good reason not to.

My 2 cents.


Rob Wultsch schreef:
> I was previously on a list where the reply-to was setup as it is on the
> mysql list, with the originator receiving a response rather than list. It
> ended up that that setting was the default, and had not been changed when
> the list was setup.
>
> Is there a good reason why the reply-to is setup as it is on this list?
>
> I forget to change the destination address for most every email I write, I
> would guess I am not alone, and I do not think that this is good for the
> list.
>
>

On 10/21/07, Rob Wultsch wrote:
> I was previously on a list where the reply-to was setup as it is on the
> mysql list, with the originator receiving a response rather than list. It
> ended up that that setting was the default, and had not been changed when
> the list was setup.
>
> Is there a good reason why the reply-to is setup as it is on this list?

If you could explain why the answer in the FAQ doesn't satisfy you we
might be of more assistance.


> I forget to change the destination address for most every email I write, I
> would guess I am not alone, and I do not think that this is good for the
> list.

I believe it is excellent for the list as it raises the bar.

Jochem

on 10/21/07 1:15 PM, Jochem van Dieten at jochemd@gmail.com wrote:

> On 10/21/07, Rob Wultsch wrote:
>> I was previously on a list where the reply-to was setup as it is on the
>> mysql list, with the originator receiving a response rather than list. It
>> ended up that that setting was the default, and had not been changed when
>> the list was setup.
>>
>> Is there a good reason why the reply-to is setup as it is on this list?
>
> If you could explain why the answer in the FAQ doesn't satisfy you we
> might be of more assistance.
>
>
>> I forget to change the destination address for most every email I write, I
>> would guess I am not alone, and I do not think that this is good for the
>> list.
>
> I believe it is excellent for the list as it raises the bar.
>
> Jochem
I think the issue is that when people reply to the originator by mistake and
not the list, the list does not get the subsequent correspondence that is
definitely useful to the rest of us. If someone asks a question and someone
else answers it I think we should all see the response without fail so we
can all learn from the response. It also makes for better searchable lists
and averts redundant questions.

My $2USD

** OOPS, what do you know. I have to resend this because I forgot to reply
all. :-P


Thanks

Steffan

---------------------------------------------------------------
T E L 6 0 2 . 7 9 3 . 0 0 1 4 | F A X 6 0 2 . 9 7 1 . 1 6 9 4
Steffan A. Cline
Steffan@ExecuChoice.net Phoenix, Az
http://www.ExecuChoice.net USA
AIM : SteffanC ICQ : 57234309
YAHOO : Steffan_Cline MSN : steffan@hldns.com
GOOGLE: Steffan.Cline Lasso Partner Alliance Member
---------------------------------------------------------------

Could you just summarize the reasons, Jochem?
I'd like to know, too, because it certainly is annoying.

I read the FAQ, but it provides no reason, only a reference
to the pro and con treatises, which I'd rather not wade through
unless necessary. (It would be nice if the FAQ had a brief
explanation and a link for a more thorough explanation...)

So, could you provide a one or two sentence reason why this
is better? It's also this way on one other list I use.

Thanks,

Rick



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:jochemd@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 4:16 PM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Re: Reply-to is to originator rather than to list
>
> > Is there a good reason why the reply-to is setup as it is on this list?
>
> If you could explain why the answer in the FAQ doesn't satisfy you we
> might be of more assistance.
>

I whole heartedly agree... and I had to clear out
Steffan's email address to avoid sending a copy to him, also.
It's annoying enough to have to clean up messages
to keep them from being too long.

Rick


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steffan A. Cline [mailto:steffan@hldns.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 4:24 PM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Re: Reply-to is to originator rather than to list
>

> >
> > I believe it is excellent for the list as it raises the bar.
> >
> > Jochem

> I think the issue is that when people reply to the originator by mistake and
> not the list, the list does not get the subsequent correspondence that is
> definitely useful to the rest of us. If someone asks a question and someone
> else answers it I think we should all see the response without fail so we
> can all learn from the response. It also makes for better searchable lists
> and averts redundant questions.
>
> My $2USD
>
> ** OOPS, what do you know. I have to resend this because I forgot to reply
> all. :-P
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Steffan

I think I'm on the brink of having a law named after me:

"Xaprb's Law: as a mailing list ages, the probability of an argument
over the Reply-to header configuration approaches one."

By way of comparison, see Godwin's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Can we please just leave the list as it is and focus on MySQL....?

Baron Schwartz wrote:
> I think I'm on the brink of having a law named after me:
>
> "Xaprb's Law: as a mailing list ages, the probability of an argument
> over the Reply-to header configuration approaches one."
>
> By way of comparison, see Godwin's Law:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
>
> Can we please just leave the list as it is and focus on MySQL....?
>

Are you some list-Nazi or something?

sol beach wrote:
> PKB
>

¿Qué?

PS: please don't top-post (how could i resist?)

sol beach wrote:
> Pot, Kettle, Black (Usenet shorthand for 'Look at the pot calling the kettle
> black')
>
> http://acronymfinder.com/af-query.as...b&string=exact
>
>
> On 10/21/07, mysql@subtropolix.org <mysql@subtropolix.org> wrote:
>
>>sol beach wrote:
>>
>>>PKB
>>>
>>
>>¿Qué?
>>
>>PS: please don't top-post (how could i resist?)
>>
>>--
>>MySQL General Mailing List
>>For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
>>To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=sol.beach@gmail.com
>>

Got it.

You, um, *did* realise that that was a joke ... right?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

PS: please don't top-post.

Peter Brawley wrote:
> What part of asking if someone is a Nazi do you think funny?
>
> PB
>
> mysql@subtropolix.org wrote:
>
>> sol beach wrote:
>>
>>> Pot, Kettle, Black (Usenet shorthand for 'Look at the pot calling the
>>> kettle
>>> black')
>>>
>>> http://acronymfinder.com/af-query.as...b&string=exact
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/21/07, mysql@subtropolix.org <mysql@subtropolix.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> sol beach wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> PKB
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ¿Qué?
>>>>
>>>> PS: please don't top-post (how could i resist?)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> MySQL General Mailing List
>>>> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
>>>> To unsubscribe:
>>>> http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=sol.beach@gmail.com
>>>>
>>
>> Got it.
>>
>> You, um, *did* realise that that was a joke ... right?
>>
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
>>
>> PS: please don't top-post.
>>

The part where some people seem to not be paying *any attention at all*
to the link to a full explanation of Godwin's Law (trust me--it's quite
pertinent).

This is becoming *really* funny, actually.

While we're at it, what part of "please don't top-post" did you not
understand?

sol beach wrote:
> It is better to stay silent & be thought a fool, rather than speaking &
> removing all doubt.

Sheesh! Lighten up. Do you understand what Godwin's Law is? I suspect
you don't or you'd perhaps have some clue as to why i asked Baron if he
was one. If you *do* know what Godwin's Law is but still don't get it
then all bets are, indeed, off.

> You should stay with your day job as you'd never make it a comedian.

Obviously not with certain crowds, no.

> I suspect that you are a minority of 1 which have found anything funny in
> either response.
>

I'm finding the replies *exceptionally* amusing.

the dont part

mysql@subtropolix.org wrote:
> Peter Brawley wrote:
>> What part of asking if someone is a Nazi do you think funny?
>>
>> PB
>>
>> mysql@subtropolix.org wrote:
>>
>>> sol beach wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pot, Kettle, Black (Usenet shorthand for 'Look at the pot calling
>>>> the kettle
>>>> black')
>>>>
>>>> http://acronymfinder.com/af-query.as...b&string=exact
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/21/07, mysql@subtropolix.org <mysql@subtropolix.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> sol beach wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> PKB
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ¿Qué?
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: please don't top-post (how could i resist?)
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> MySQL General Mailing List
>>>>> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
>>>>> To unsubscribe:
>>>>> http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=sol.beach@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Got it.
>>>
>>> You, um, *did* realise that that was a joke ... right?
>>>
>>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
>>>
>>> PS: please don't top-post.
>>>
>
> The part where some people seem to not be paying *any attention at
> all* to the link to a full explanation of Godwin's Law (trust me--it's
> quite pertinent).
>
> This is becoming *really* funny, actually.
>
> While we're at it, what part of "please don't top-post" did you not
> understand?
>

ProntoHost wrote:
> the dont part
>

Finally: someone with a sense of humour.

And nice use of the emoticon, bub. I should have used a few myself, it
seems.

Peter Brawley wrote:
> >This is becoming *really* funny, actually.
>
> Nothing remotelt funny about implying someone is a Nazi.

I wasn't implying anyone was a Nazi. Unfortunately, you still don't
understand that. That's too bad, but I won't lose any sleep over it.

Did you happen to check out the Godwin's Law page, btw?

In any case, i was saying that the *responses* are really funny. I'll
let the reviews of my own jokes speak for themselves (boy, are they!)

I still think the responses are quite humorous.

> >While we're at it, what part of "please don't top-post" did you not
> understand?
>
> I understand it entirely. I choose otherwise.
>

Suit yourself. I thought it was worth bringing up, considering this
thread was about list operation/protocol. And i couldn't resist phrasing
it to you in that way. I guess I could have also asked, "What part of
Godwin's Law do you not understand?" Or, "What part about making a
sarcastic joke about a sarcastic joke about hyperbole do you not
understand?" But that might have been too much.

Just to re-cap: i wasn't implying that anyone was a Nazi.

Hi Rob,

I agree this is a problem for one major reason:

I never know, if someone replies to my post, without the CC to the
list, whether the writer wants to take the conversation off the list,
or if he just hit reply (instead of reply-to-all) out of habit.

If the default is to reply to the list and CC to the originator, then
it is obvious when a reply does not go to the list that the person
that replied does not want his response made public!

On Oct 21, 2007, at 9:18 PM, Rob Wultsch wrote:

> I was previously on a list where the reply-to was setup as it is on
> the
> mysql list, with the originator receiving a response rather than
> list. It
> ended up that that setting was the default, and had not been
> changed when
> the list was setup.
>
> Is there a good reason why the reply-to is setup as it is on this
> list?
>
> I forget to change the destination address for most every email I
> write, I
> would guess I am not alone, and I do not think that this is good
> for the
> list.

I've seen this debate on a lot of lists. I firmly believe having a
list munge reply-to is almost universally a very bad idea (the
main exception being very small lists of people who know each other).

Most email programs allow you to tell them the names of the lists you
subscribe to, and/or can autodetect what the list name is from the
appropriate headers, and give you an easy list-reply command. So you
have your usual individual reply command, group reply / reply to all,
and list reply. If you're annoyed by having to edit headers to reply
to the list, then learn how to use your email program's list-reply
command.

Yes, sometimes someone accidentally replies to you and not the list.
You write them back and ask, "did you mean to send this just to me, or
to the list?" Mildly annoying, but either of you can send the message
on to the list and the rest of the list members lose nothing.

If you go the other way, though, the error case is that sometimes
someone sends to the list a message they intended to be private.
Not only does it increase list volume mostly with noise, but it
occasionally leads to embarrassment, confusion, or breach of privacy.
It makes all of the above more likely to happen accidentally, and when
they do happen, there's no way to take it back.
-- Cos

On 10/22/07, Ofer Inbar <cos@aaaaa.org> wrote:
> I've seen this debate on a lot of lists. I firmly believe having a
> list munge reply-to is almost universally a very bad idea (the
> main exception being very small lists of people who know each other).
>
> Most email programs allow you to tell them the names of the lists you
> subscribe to, and/or can autodetect what the list name is from the
> appropriate headers, and give you an easy list-reply command. So you
> have your usual individual reply command, group reply / reply to all,
> and list reply. If you're annoyed by having to edit headers to reply
> to the list, then learn how to use your email program's list-reply
> command.
>
> Yes, sometimes someone accidentally replies to you and not the list.
> You write them back and ask, "did you mean to send this just to me, or
> to the list?" Mildly annoying, but either of you can send the message
> on to the list and the rest of the list members lose nothing.
>
> If you go the other way, though, the error case is that sometimes
> someone sends to the list a message they intended to be private.
> Not only does it increase list volume mostly with noise, but it
> occasionally leads to embarrassment, confusion, or breach of privacy.
> It makes all of the above more likely to happen accidentally, and when
> they do happen, there's no way to take it back.
> -- Cos
>

Thank you for a well thought response. It sounds like a decent part of
the list agrees with me, and a decent part disagree. However you are
the first anti-munger to not refer to a FAQ which refers to
unpersuasive arguments by a 3rd party.

I would wager that on a up or down vote that the the mungers would
have it, however the the support is not overwhelming, which it ought
to be for a change like this to be made. Oh well.

INSERT INTO `mysql_list` SET `forum`= 'RELIGION', `topic` = 'reply-to';

--
Rob Wultsch