On 11/11/09 17:28, bill lam wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
>> Yeah, well, I don't agree with Reply-To munging (see
>> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html for a full
>> argumentation), and I have other reasons to reply to All (or to List
>> if I could) anyway.
>
> If you use a decent mailer, Reply-To munging cannot hurt you. eg.
> there are 3 mode of reply:
> 1. r - reply to sender or use Tab to switch to other address in cc list
> 2. g - group reply to all
> 3. L - reply to list
>
That's if there is _no_ reply-to munging on the part of the list server.
Until very recently, when I hit "Reply to Sender" on one of these list
posts (with the intention to reply privately), the addressee I got was
vim_use@ which was not what I wanted.
Reply-to-List I haven't got yet, but as soon as I find how to get it
with SeaMonkey 2 I'm gonna install it.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
"Just once, I wish we would encounter an alien menace that wasn't
immune to bullets"
-- The Brigader, "Dr. Who"
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
