In <20041029143206(_dot_)7016f345(_dot_)moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
It's hardly surprising that your customers who have already become
accustomed to the way your product behaves are annoyed when you change
it. LISTSERV and ListProc users who were used to Reply-To being
set by those servers also tended to think that having lists set
Reply-To was "the right thing".
None of this changes the fact that having lists set Reply-To is less
functional and does harm to the message.
That is a commonly expressed view, but I think it is wrong.
I much prefer those lists which set Reply-To (I have been on lists where
the members have voted to have it set so), even though I have to remember
which list is which in order to press the right Reply button.
It will be even better, of course, when we have a MFT field available as
well, so that Reply-To is still available for direct contact with the
author.
All it means is that users
often choose the behavior they have adapted to in their isolated
communities, rather than the behavior that works best overall.
But at the moment we have the worst of both worlds. Some communities do
one thing, some do the other, and others have flame wars about whether it
is ruder to do one thing or to do the other.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave,
CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5