Paul Findon wrote: > On 15 May 2008, at 04:25, Jeremy H. Griffith wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 May 2008 22:05:47 -0400, Alan Houser > > <arh at groupwellesley.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Which is worse? -- > >> > >> - You reply to a message on the list. Assuming that you are > >> replying to > >> the sender, you include information that is personal, privileged, or > >> inappropriate-for-public-consumption. Your reply goes to the entire > >> list. The damage is done. > >> > >> - You reply to a message on the list. It goes to the sender. With two > >> mouse clicks, you correct the oversight and direct your reply to > >> the list. > >> > >> A default "reply-to-all" listserv configuration is evil. > > > > Quite right. But it's worse than that. A list with reply-to-all > > I disagree. > > Hedley is not asking for a "reply-to-all." What he, I and, no doubt, > others want is "reply-to-list." In other words, when you click your > Reply button, by default, messages are addressed to the list.
You're making a distinction without a difference. Alan and Jeremy weren't speaking _literally_ about "reply-to-all," but _functionally_. Your "reply-to-list" goes to everyone on the list, so it functions exactly as Alan described. You haven't countered Alan's argument, just stated that you prefer something different. OK, noted. :-) Richard Richard G. Combs Senior Technical Writer Polycom, Inc. richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom 303-223-5111 ------ rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom 303-777-0436 ------
