Subject: Re: Reply-To: Setting
From: Stefan Jeglinski (jeglin@4pi.com)
Date: Wed Oct 04 2000 - 07:33:19 MDT
The way I see it, the purpose of the list is to have a public
discussion. The purpose of the sender's e-mail is to have a private
discussion. That's kinda how things were back in the days of Moses :-)
I like the reply-to as is. As a general rule, I want my response to
go back to the list. Then, if I want to include the original sender,
I can select the much-less-used "reply to all" feature of my e-mail
program, which puts those recipients into the cc header. It just
seems more natural to me. If I am on a list and a private reply is
required, then I can take the few extra steps to do cutting and
pasting. But in our perfect world, private replies on a public list
should be few, eh?:-). Unless of course, you're a flamer.
I know there are exceptions and counter-arguments, but in the absence
of a consensus, the list manager should appeal to pure logic. In my
mind then, you're on a list, so you reply to the list. OTOH, if there
-is- a strong consensus, the list manager should go with that. As has
been noted, in the beginning the consensus was to reply to the list.
But demographics and opinions change.
linuxppc-user is not set up this way, but I personally wish it was.
However, I assume it operates by consensus, and I'm happy to follow
that.
Stefan Jeglinski
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 07:40:26 MDT