Paul Smith wrote:
> 
> On 10/19/05, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>> PS: Please always reply to the list
> > >
> > > I second that. I noticed a tendency to reply off-list. This leaves
> > > gaps in the mailing list archives and puts off a subset of list
> > > subscribers. css-discuss, on the contrary, adopted some different
> > > habits. The main question to ask is "would the group or the World
> > > Wide Web benefit from this response or is its scope too narrow?". For
> > > the latter, in the case of Web site critique, there needn't be a
> > > public message available as it is site-specific or refers to browser
> > > bugs that are soon to vanish.
> >
> > Maybe it's just my mail client, but this list seems to default for a
> > reply to the sender instead of to the list, unlike all the other lists
> > I've ever been on. I accidently sent a reply intended for the list to
> > the sender and didn't realise until a few days later. So maybe other
> > people have the same problem.
> 
> I agree, Paul. The reply address should be occupied by the list's address.
> 
> Paul

I could agree ... if I had not seen the problems it can cause.
example: the MUSCLE list (smart cards) 
http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/muscle

First: to me this breaks the rule of least surprise.
that is: if I only hit reply, not reply all, I expect to be sending only to
the person who sent the originating email. 

The second problem: because of the way it rewrites the headers, if I hit
`reply to all` it still only includes the mailing list in the to lines, even
though I wanted it to give me the person's address so I could cheaply take
it off the mailing list.

If someone really decides to make the change, please set the rewriter to put
both the originator and the mailing list on the reply to line.

Thanks for the discussion...
-- 
Todd Denniston
Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane) 
Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter

Reply via email to