August 2001 - WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

Re: [Wlug] REPLY TO FROM (!!!)

by Josh Huber

Doug Chamberlin <DChamberlin(a)ne.mediaone.net> writes: > Of the 15 or so mailing lists that I'm regularly a participant on, > there are NO lists which are setup so replies go directly to senders > instead of the list as a whole. Replying by default only to senders > hinders one of the primary benefits of participation - that of > sharing info. It is generally considered "the way to go" to have > replies default to the whole list with strong objections made every > time it is suggested that it be changed. Which is interesting. This is the only list I'm on that has broken reply-to. (handy that I can turn on the "broken reply-to" for this list with my MUA, so it does replies properly -- to the SENDER). For more information: http://www.halisp.net/halisp/reply-to-harmful.html What about the case where the sender would prefer replies to go to a different address? I wonder if the list software will overwrite that field? (bad!) -- Josh Huber

Aug. 20, 2001

Re: [Wlug] REPLY TO FROM (!!!)

by Jeffry Smith

Doug Chamberlin said: >At 8/20/2001 11:53 AM (Monday), ccb(a)acm.org wrote: >> > - Some people expect that a reply will goto the group. >> > >> > However, this causes a number of people to respond to the group >> > when they mean the response to goto the sender only. >> >>Of the 40 or so mailing lists that I'm regularly a participant on, the >>wlug list is the only one exhibiting this behavior. It's generally >>consider an anachronism, dating to the days when we all had "!" in our >>email addresses. > >Of the 15 or so mailing lists that I'm regularly a participant on, there >are NO lists which are setup so replies go directly to senders instead of >the list as a whole. Replying by default only to senders hinders one of the >primary benefits of participation - that of sharing info. It is generally >considered "the way to go" to have replies default to the whole list with >strong objections made every time it is suggested that it be changed. > Not a main member of the group (only the mailing list), so take it for what it's worth, but most of the ones I'm on default to replies to the owner. A few changed over to that after some stuff accidently got sent to the list that REALLY should have been private. See http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html jeff ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffry Smith Technical Sales Consultant Mission Critical Linux smith(a)missioncriticallinux.com phone:603.930.9739 fax:978.446.9470 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Thought for today: greenbar n. A style of fanfolded continuous-feed paper with alternating green and white bars on it, especially used in old-style line printers. This slang almost certainly dates way back to mainframe days.

Aug. 20, 2001

Re: [Wlug] REPLY TO FROM (!!!)

by Brian Niece

At 11:13 AM 8/20/01 -0400, you wrote: > Can we configure this list so that the "Principle of Least >Astonishment" holds when replying to FROM? > > A reply to FROM should reply to the sender, not the list. Let me chime in here with an apology. For a lot of discussions, it probably does make sense to have the replies go to the entire list. I just keep forgetting to check the To: header when I'm sending ones that not everyone needs to see. That "Reply" button is just too easy to hit. Sorry, Brian -- Brian K. Niece, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Chemistry Assumption College 500 Salisbury St. Worcester, MA 01609-1296 508-767-7209

Aug. 20, 2001

Re: [Wlug] REPLY TO FROM (!!!)

by ccb＠acm.org

> Of the 15 or so mailing lists that I'm regularly a participant on, there > are NO lists which are setup so replies go directly to senders instead of > the list as a whole. Replying by default only to senders hinders one of the > primary benefits of participation - that of sharing info. It is generally > considered "the way to go" to have replies default to the whole list with > strong objections made every time it is suggested that it be changed. So be it. I'll hack my MUA to suit my own tastes. ccb -- Charles C. Bennett, Jr. VA LiNUX Systems Systems Engineer, Northeast US 25 Burlington Mall Rd., Suite 300 +1 617 543-6513 Burlington, MA 01803-4145 ccb(a)valinux.com www.valinux.com

Aug. 20, 2001

Re: [Wlug] REPLY TO FROM (!!!)

by Viper

Ok this is a list serve isn't it? -=>Viper<=- Quoting ccb(a)acm.org: > > > - Some people expect that a reply will goto the group. > > > > However, this causes a number of people to respond to the group > > when they mean the response to goto the sender only. > > > Of the 40 or so mailing lists that I'm regularly a participant on, the > wlug list is the only one exhibiting this behavior. It's generally > consider an anachronism, dating to the days when we all had "!" in our > email addresses. > > > decvax!ccb > > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug >

Aug. 20, 2001

Re: [Wlug] REPLY TO FROM (!!!)

by Doug Chamberlin

At 8/20/2001 11:53 AM (Monday), ccb(a)acm.org wrote: > > - Some people expect that a reply will goto the group. > > > > However, this causes a number of people to respond to the group > > when they mean the response to goto the sender only. > >Of the 40 or so mailing lists that I'm regularly a participant on, the >wlug list is the only one exhibiting this behavior. It's generally >consider an anachronism, dating to the days when we all had "!" in our >email addresses. Of the 15 or so mailing lists that I'm regularly a participant on, there are NO lists which are setup so replies go directly to senders instead of the list as a whole. Replying by default only to senders hinders one of the primary benefits of participation - that of sharing info. It is generally considered "the way to go" to have replies default to the whole list with strong objections made every time it is suggested that it be changed.

Aug. 20, 2001

Re: [Wlug] REPLY TO FROM (!!!)

by ccb＠acm.org

> - Some people expect that a reply will goto the group. > > However, this causes a number of people to respond to the group > when they mean the response to goto the sender only. Of the 40 or so mailing lists that I'm regularly a participant on, the wlug list is the only one exhibiting this behavior. It's generally consider an anachronism, dating to the days when we all had "!" in our email addresses. decvax!ccb

Aug. 20, 2001

Re: [Wlug] REPLY TO FROM (!!!)

by Theo Van Dinter

On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 11:13:14AM -0400, ccb(a)acm.org wrote: > Can we configure this list so that the "Principle of Least > Astonishment" holds when replying to FROM? > > A reply to FROM should reply to the sender, not the list. There are at least two sides to this: - Some people expect that a reply will go to the sender. However, this causes a number of people to respond only to the sender when they mean the response to goto the group. - Some people expect that a reply will goto the group. However, this causes a number of people to respond to the group when they mean the response to goto the sender only. Which one is better? Who can say? The best course of action is to look at where mail is going before sending it. It'll always goto the right destination that way. :) -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "He went on to say that he was afraid to speak with me because I wrote a Perl book and because I occassionally nibble on rubber bats and wear leather pants ..." - Nathan Patwardhan

Aug. 20, 2001

REPLY TO FROM (!!!)

by ccb＠acm.org

Hi Guys - Can we configure this list so that the "Principle of Least Astonishment" holds when replying to FROM? A reply to FROM should reply to the sender, not the list. Thanks, ccb

Aug. 20, 2001

Re: [Wlug] Extra Hardware

by ccb＠acm.org

Hi Brian - I'm working decided unregular workdays. I'm headed to Vail, Colorado tomorrow for a sales training shindig through the rest of the week. If you really need to unload those things maybe you should chase the next guy in line... ccb

Aug. 20, 2001