FW: [GLLUG] reply to

Edward Glowacki glowack2@msu.edu
15 May 2002 14:02:21 -0400

On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 13:47, Jeremy Bowers wrote:
> See, now that's one of those "change your brain" arguments. I've already 
> tried conforming to the software, for a period of several months now, 
> and it's not working for me. As far as I'm concerned, it's broken. 
> Telling the user what's wrong with them only infuriates them.
> Like I said, I agree abstractly with the page, but it's a prototypical 
> example of an academic argument that ends up not applying in the real 
> world. The correct answer to UI problems can only be determined by 
> empirical experimentation. If your program's model doesn't match the 
> user's model, then your program's model must change. Changing user 
> models is an exercise in futility, along with being a disservice to the 
> user. And my user's model, along with apparently many others, is 
> "replies go to the list".

Which software were you trying to conform to, the mailing list software
or your email client?  Personally, my email client (Evolution) has
properly conformed to *my* expectations by providing the options I need
and making them very clear:

- Reply to sender
- Reply to list
- Reply to all

With these options, the way the linux-user list is currently setup is
correct, and munging the reply-to headers would actually *remove* the
"Reply to sender" functionality (as described in the article that Dennis
linked to, as well as my experience with a list that does this).

I think the correct solution to this problem is to use a mail client
that supports "reply to list" properly as an additional command, or to
encourage the developers of your mail client to add that feature.  

Edward Glowacki				glowack2@msu.edu
GLLUG Peon  				http://www.gllug.org
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality.
                -- Jules de Gaultier