Date   : Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:42:13 +0100 (BST)
From   : Greg Cook <debounce@...>
Subject: Re: Adressing posts (OT) (Rant)

On 29 Jul 2005 17:38:10 +0100, Jonathan Graham Harston
<jgh@...> wrote:

> Greg Cook <debounce@...> wrote:
> > You realise of course, that the list is only bearable because of
> this
> > default.  It "fails safe" against accidental posting, by requiring
> a
>  
> No, it "fails dangerous".

You consider it 'dangerous' to send a message to fewer people than you
were expecting.  I consider the 'dangerous' option to be the one that
cannot be undone, namely broadcasting when you need limited
distribution.

> The principle of least surprise would be that when I reply to a
> post from a MAILING LIST it goes back to the MAILING LIST.

Unless the post is an offer of goods for sale etc., in which case my
order should be private, right?

The sender is best placed to set the Reply-To address to himself, the
list or wherever s/he chooses.  If most people can't (or don't!) set
this field, that doesn't mean it's the mailing list's to alter.

For me, the principle of least surprise is when I reply to an *email*
it goes back to the *author* (i.e. the only name on the screen.)  If I
wanted to reply to everyone I would have clicked 'Reply All'. [*]

> I've had to really hack around my mail processing software to
> artifically generate a "Reply-To:" line so that I can correctly
> reply to posts from the list.

Good for you, as you'll know what you wanted and you'll be getting it.

[*] The original subject of this thread was about duplicate messages in
one's inbox when people clicked 'Reply All'.  Out of that, or
publishing confidential messages, it can be arranged that one is
avoided by conscious effort and the other by default.  I know which way
round I'd choose.

Greg



               
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com