Date   : Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:28:49 +0000
From   : Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk@...>
Subject: Re: Adressing posts (OT) (Rant)

On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 13:42 +0100, Greg Cook wrote:
> 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.

It's not dangerous at all though. On the rare occassion that someone
sends something to the list rather than an individual, it might be a bit
embrassing, but nothing more. 

If someone *is* sending something ultra-sensitive for whatever reason
and doesn't even bother to check what address they're sending it to,
then I reckon they deserve everything they get to be honest!

Why make life inconvenient for list members in order to save the odd
cock-up? It's like litigation culture - make everyone suffer for the
benefit of a very small minority.

> > 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?

Yes, so you know you want to send to an individual, so you proofread
your message before hitting send, right? I expect for all replies
generated by this list, a much higher percentage of them are intended
for the list rather than individuals. Again, why favour the minority at
the expense of the majority?

> 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.) 

It's a public list/forum/group though; the whole point of it being there
is being able to share information with other members. The current
default is to only share messages with individuals, which seems to go
completely against the public nature.

> [*] 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.

Again, it's a public list, geared around sharing information. Only a
small minority of replies are likely to be confidential, and if
someone's writing something confidential I'd expect them to double-check
things before sending anyway. I certainly know I'd much rather any
replies to a question I'd asked here to go to the list in order that it
might benefit someone in the future than to me personally where only I
will then be in possession of the responses. (I'd re-think that if there
were a million posts a week to the list though :-)

my 2p's worth anyway...

cheers

Jules