On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 08:47:26AM -0500, Rance Hall wrote: > Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > >>>>>>"Rance" == Rance Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >Rance> All of my other lists behave in the reverse, if you reply, it goes > >to > >Rance> the list, if you reply all, a second copy goes to the individual. > > > >Oh geez. Here we go again. > > > >Please read <http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html>. > >And understand that *no* list managed at lists.perl.org will *ever* > >have reply-to set. Thank goodness. :)
[snip] > > I read your url reference, and it has some interesting points. > > (It didn't convince me because the article actually admitted that my > situation was a real problem for which there was NO solution.) > I've read through that several times and put some thought into it. For the most part, the arguments presented in it are spurious at best, at least from where I'm sitting. Since I don't care to contribute to what may become a flame war, or at least further off-topicness, any more than necessary, I won't address its shortcomings here -- but if anyone is interested in my take on it in more depth, I've posted some detail here: http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=47 If you're not interested, feel free to ignore it. Of course. You won't hurt my feelings by failing to read it and continuing to believe whatever you like. TIMTOWTDI. > > A simple NO and heres why would have been sufficient. I'm not even entirely sure who would have the authority to say "yes", anyway, truth be told. I think this tangent was to a fair degree my fault: I asked not long ago if there was a particular reason for this list behavior. I have, along with others, been directed to a URL that purports to explain why this list behavior is better than others and, while I don't agree with it overmuch, it at least answers my question. I guess it's time for the tangent to end, as you indicated. I'm just a windbag that has to agree with you in several paragraphs of rambling. > > There is an assumption in some circles that the "pet project" is so > amazing no one could call them selves a "Sys Admin" without knowing > about it. My experience on this list has taught me that perl is one of > those "pet projects." It's certainly difficult to justify labeling oneself as an "expert" sysadmin in a unixy context without being able to at least read simple Perl, particularly with unices such as Linux where a significant number of common and basic utilities make use of Perl. In any case, I'm happy enough with the existence of this list that I'm willing to put up with the difficulty of having to remember a separate set of reply behaviors for it from all the rest of my email correspondence for now. If my "return on investment" for this list decreases in the future, I may have to reconsider that, but for now I'm happy to be here, to help and be helped. I learned more than I expected to learn from my golf thread, after all. . . . and I learned something about email culture from this tangent, as well. Learning, I think, is the important part of all this. -- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of others we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
