[MPlayer-users] pre8 crashes on "Large H.264 MPEG-4" Hubble .mp4 file

[The Wanderer]

Denis Vlasenko wrote:

> On Wednesday 23 August 2006 10:49, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:

[that Denis Vlasenko wrote:]

>>> But my name IS in the From: field, no?
>> 
>> Yes, but with mailing lists, it is expected that the reply will go
>> to the list.
> 
> I suppose lkml is another good example of well-known mailing list.
> These are the rules which are in effect there:

<snip>

> http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/3/30/294
> From: Lee Revell
> 
>> Please don't assume everyone subscribes to LKML, or that everything
>> crafted to be threaded more-or-less-correctly was really crafted
>> with any kind of "reply" command.  :)
> 
> Um, that's exactly why reply-to-all should be used, because not
> everyone who posts to LKML subscribes to the list.

If they don't subscribe to the list, then it's not unreasonable to
expect that they don't *want* to receive a copy of the reply. If they're
interested in following the discussion by some means (perhaps via
Gmane), then the burden is on them to check for responses.

> lkml FAQ: http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> # Can we have a Reply-To: header automatically added to the list traffic?
>   * (DW) Some mailing lists automatically add a Reply-To: header
>     to the mails which go through them, forcing people to reply
>     to the list, rather than replying personally to the original
>     poster. This is a bad idea for many reasons which won't be
>     listed here. See Chip Rosenthal's excellent summary
>     Reply-To: Munging Considered Harmful for more explanation.
> 
> 
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> (too large to post it here)

I've seen that and others of its ilk before, and I disagree with them
quite sharply. A discussion forum should behave like a discussion forum;
replies should by default go to the forum, not to the poster of the
specific replied-to message.

I am quite amenable to the notion of adding to, rather than replacing,
the Reply-To header in cases where the poster had set one already; I've
never seen anyone else suggest this, but it seems to me that it would
neatly avoid at least one significant component of the objections on
Websites like that one which is not negated by my statement of principle
above.

>>> I do not accuse people doing this intentionally. It happens
>>> automatically when one uses "Reply" instead of "Reply to all".
>> 
>> I use neither. I use List Reply, as I think everybody should.
> 
> Do as you please, but replies to my mails which have my name neither
> in To: nor in CC: will most likely not be read most of the time, or
> read with a delay of many days.

If I were certain that it would not be replaced by the list server, I
would suggest that you simply set the Reply-To header (perhaps
automatically - that should be possible) to include your E-mail address.
As things stand, however, I will take this as what one might call a
Reply-To footer, and continue to follow your requested behaviour when
replying to you - just as we would hope you would do when replying to
us.

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.