Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 07:20:17 -0400
From: Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
To: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?\"Mikkel_H=F8gh\"?=" <mikkel@hoegh.org>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Annoying Reply-To
Message-Id: <20081017072017.1039f895.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
In-Reply-To: <D22F5E21-BACF-4466-8AC0-9E57E73809C6@hoegh.org>
References: <C6449FCD-198D-4A04-BACB-1BB2F20DD5B1@hoegh.org>
	<F933F17A-70BC-4DB0-9491-9EEF0E79ABD9@hoegh.org>
	<b42b73150810141422i5ad693a8la3966fa6334c23f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<7438A981-4B6A-4E5A-A1E0-50432CDEFB00@hoegh.org>
	<48F6EE94.8010904@batory.org.pl>
	<4BE94DFB-8917-4175-9083-7DEABC30BD7F@hoegh.org>
	<48F70157.7010601@batory.org.pl>
	<20081016144046.GH4452@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<10268b3e0810160809l3f16fba3k1d45271fbbe865b@mail.gmail.com>
	<20081016152647.GI4452@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<dcc563d10810160927t36806346kb42ccfc881d339bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F39EAE4-2C57-4839-8AB7-98AC131C0C4A@hoegh.org>
	<48F85CED.7000009@batory.org.pl>
	<6D3E0C6E-B2F4-4BAF-92E0-46C4EAE4D51B@hoegh.org>
	<48F867EE.5040403@batory.org.pl>
	<D22F5E21-BACF-4466-8AC0-9E57E73809C6@hoegh.org>
Organization: Collaborative Fusion
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In response to "Mikkel H=F8gh" <mikkel@hoegh.org>:

>=20
> On 17/10/2008, at 12.24, Tomasz Ostrowski wrote:
>=20
> > On 2008-10-17 12:13, Mikkel H=F8gh wrote:
> >
> >>> You're supposed to use "Reply to all" if you want to reply to the
> >>> list.
> >>
> >> Well, I think the most common use case for a mailing list is to reply
> >> back to the list, isn't that the whole point?
> >
> > It is a point of having "Reply to all" button. With "reply-to" is it
> > hard to reply to one person, easy to reply to the list. Without it =20
> > it is
> > both easy.
>=20
> But again, how often do you want to give a personal reply only? That =20
> is a valid use-case, but I'd say amongst the hundreds of mailing-list =20
> replies I've written over the years, only two or three were not sent =20
> back to the mailing list.

You're forgetting the cost of a mistake in that case.

As it stands, if you hit reply when you meant reply-to, oops, resend.

If it's changed and you hit reply when you want to send a private message
to the poster, you just broadcast your private message to the world.

> Yay, even more manual labour instead of having the computers doing the =20
> work for us. What's your next suggestion, go back to pen and paper?

Don't be an asshole.  There's no need for that kind of cynicism.

> Well, my point is that Reply-To: is only dangerous if you're not =20
> careful. Not so with the other examples you mention :)

But as it is now, it's not dangerous at all.

> If you're writing something important, private and/or confidential, =20
> don't you always check before you send? You'd better, because a small =20
> typo when you selected the recipient might mean that you're sending =20
> love-letters to your boss or something like that :)

I'd rather know that the computer had my back in the case of an error,
instead of it helping me mindlessly even when I'm doing the wrong thing.
To me, that's also the difference between MySQL and PostgreSQL.

--=20
Bill Moran
Collaborative Fusion Inc.
http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/

wmoran@collaborativefusion.com
Phone: 412-422-3463x4023