Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last

Hi *,

Florian Effenberger wrote (26-10-11 16:45)

Friedrich Strohmaier wrote on 2011-10-26 00:59:

No, it definitely doesn't brake lists! Posters who choose one of those
broken clients (regarding mailing list usage) will have to fiddle with
reply-to all and mangling the posters address - their problem.

Sounds reasonable, but the question is ... at what cost ;-)

at least once a week, I even get mislead mails from one of our admins,
who I think of being technically very experienced. The admin lists
doesn't have reply-to mangling, and lots of content is missing on the
list, because people always reply to me directly. Especially our admins
have been bugging me to turn on reply-to-mangling on that list... weird
world. :-)

I have seen users of mutt, Google Mail and a few other mail clients

I vote for all lists, because the above is valid for all of them. But
well, I admit as long as we lead unexperienced users looking for support
on a mailing list (which I consider not beeing a good solution), we
should think about making that one an exception (and thus making life
harder for those *giving* support).

Maybe it is changing one bad for the other ...?

My take would be to use one of the more prominent lists to try out the
results - preferably users@, or in case we want to exclude that list,
something like discuss@ could be a good starter.

In case pure chaos arises, we need to rethink the strategy, in case
things work out well, we might adapt that for other lists.

What do you think?

Yes, let's try how it works. with discuss@ .. what does it deliver and what does it take?


 The Document Foundation - Founding member
 - skype   : cornouws
 - mobile  : +31 (0)6 25 20 7001
 - blog    :
 - twitter : cor4office

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.