Re: [boost] Should we change the reply-to setting?

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-22 16:35:52

On 7/21/06 3:09 PM, "Jody Hagins" <jody-boost-011304_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:42:41 -0700
> "Bryan Ross" <daerid_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>> I for one am for this. A few times I've sent mails directly to the
>> author of a posting, and it's been a bit of an annoyance to
>> 
>> 1. Create a new message
>> 2. Copy/paste the address of the recipient
>> 3. Copy/paste the context of the message
>> 4. Finally type out the message.
>> 
>> The author of that article makes a good point about mail clients. Any
>> client worth its salt will have some sort of "Reply to All" feature.
> 
> I haven't read it, and have no opinion either way, but if your mail
> client has "reply-to-all" why can't you "reply-to-all" and just remove
> the boost mailing list entry.  That's a lot easier than the steps you
> say you use currently...

A point of the original message was that putting the Boost e-mail address
into the "reply-to" field _replaces_ whatever was there and forces the
"from" field to be ignored, so reply-to-all is worthless.  The exception is
e-mail clients that wrongly always use the "from" field to send back
messages.  (In the sub-thread about people getting automated vacation
messages, the vacationer's client probably does this.)  The point of having
a "reply-to" field is to help when a user's send and receive addresses
differ.

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT hotmail DOT com