[cw-discuss] OT: Broken replies

[OF]

On 12/19/06, OF <octopusfluff at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/1/06, James E. LaBarre <jamesl at bestweb.net> wrote:
> > > If it helps, here is someone else's reasoning on the subject:
> > >   http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> > Yeah, well I've read that one many times before.  And I've seen a
> > response to that, but can't find it in a Google search with so many
> > misguided comments about it being bad.  But if the purpose of a
> > discussion list is to send messages to *everyone* for everyone's
> > benefit, and 95% of the other lists I use can handle it correctly, then
> > an automatic response to the poster, not the list, os obviously wrong.
>
> I believe this may be what you're looking for:
> http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml
>

In the interest of full disclosure, there's a further comment in that
'thread' here:
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html

If there's a further rebuttal posted publicly somewhere, I'm unaware of it.

I personally still prefer munging, but I think this is one of those
issues that will be forever battled, much like vi versus emacs, pine
versus elm, and coke versus pepsi. :)