RE: mod_perl 1.99 on Win2k with Apache2

[Alessandro Forghieri <Al...@think3.com>]

Greetings.

> 
> Nigel Peck wrote:
> > Thanks for the help. When did I reply to you privately?
> 
> This was just to reiterate for everybody to keep the threads on the 
> list. Since many times those who respond to the questions, suffer 
> afterwards because people decide that the person answering 
> the question, 
> is a free help desk that you can ask about anything, not 
> talking about 
[...]

Stas, as one that has been guilty of the  same "offence", let me point out
that 99.9% of the time, seemingly private responses emerge from the list
manager's policy of not munging the Reply-to: header - so the poor schmuck
(me) hits reply and fires off a private reply to the poster.

I know all about "Reply-to: munging considered harmful" and attending flame
wars and I do not wish to delve into the relative pros and cons of the
diveded camps (I'll just say that the lists I administer do the munging -
period). What I wish to do is pointing out that - on non-munging lists -
most standard clients require a conscious decision if they want to reply to
the list, despite the fact that this would be the actual intention most of
the times (so it makes for a poor interface). People stuck - like me - in
Outlook-land have it even worse than most. 

Just my 0.02 & cheers,
alf

Re: mod_perl 1.99 on Win2k with Apache2

[David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>]

Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org> writes:

> I'm +1 on using a preset 'Reply-to:' header. httpd-dev seems to use it
> solely for the reason you describe. I'm all for helping people to
> reply back to the list. Ask, can we please have this header set?

Can we please *not*?
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net  /  New TMDA anti-spam in test
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
        Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
         New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info

Re: mod_perl 1.99 on Win2k with Apache2

[Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>]

Alessandro Forghieri wrote:
> Greetings.
> 
> 
>>Nigel Peck wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks for the help. When did I reply to you privately?
>>
>>This was just to reiterate for everybody to keep the threads on the 
>>list. Since many times those who respond to the questions, suffer 
>>afterwards because people decide that the person answering 
>>the question, 
>>is a free help desk that you can ask about anything, not 
>>talking about 
> 
> [...]
> 
> Stas, as one that has been guilty of the  same "offence", let me point out
> that 99.9% of the time, seemingly private responses emerge from the list
> manager's policy of not munging the Reply-to: header - so the poor schmuck
> (me) hits reply and fires off a private reply to the poster.
> 
> I know all about "Reply-to: munging considered harmful" and attending flame
> wars and I do not wish to delve into the relative pros and cons of the
> diveded camps (I'll just say that the lists I administer do the munging -
> period). What I wish to do is pointing out that - on non-munging lists -
> most standard clients require a conscious decision if they want to reply to
> the list, despite the fact that this would be the actual intention most of
> the times (so it makes for a poor interface). People stuck - like me - in
> Outlook-land have it even worse than most. 

I'm +1 on using a preset 'Reply-to:' header. httpd-dev seems to use it 
solely for the reason you describe. I'm all for helping people to reply 
back to the list. Ask, can we please have this header set?


-- 


__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/     mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org   http://ticketmaster.com