[antlr-interest] a request about "reply-all" to list

[John D. Mitchell]

>>>>> "Loring" == Loring Craymer <Loring.G.Craymer at jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
[...]

>> If Mitchell or whoever already was arguing for this, he probably would
>> have mentioned http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html. Just in
>> case he didn't, please read it.

> I've read it; the technical arguments are weak, largely because this is a
> user-interface issue and the author ignores that. It presupposes a very
> different view of mailing lists--that "reply to sender" is common
> usage--that does not apply here.  [I do belong to lists for which the
> argument could apply--those are typically small lists which are only
> transiently used.]  The failure mode for this list is not to broadcast
> personal email, but to reply to the sender instead of the group.

Google "mail-followup-to".

Almost everybody thinks that their holier-than-thou position is better than
the other.  Alas, this problem, like the hackery and problems caused by
mucking around with the fact that hard-tabs == 8 spaces, is so baked-in to
so many difference pieces of software that there is no real solution that
doesn't involve switching to a different header.

Sigh,
	John

P.S.	Ter: You might try running an email duplicate detector.