You are quite right. I did not address Alan's argument, the reason
being that his points did not resonate with me.
> - 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.
Maybe. But it's highly unlikely that I would be replying to a message
from a mailing list dedicated to a software product for technical
authoring and publishing with anything that's personal, privileged,
or inappropriate for public consumption.
> - 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.
What normally happens to me with Framers is that I reply to a message
with some info that I believe will of interest to other Framers and
may trigger a response, or I add a new sub question. Then, after
several days I remember the thread and wonder why no one has
responded. I check the message I sent and discover that once again
I've been fooled by Framers non-standard reply mechanism.
On 16 May 2008, at 15:11, Combs, Richard wrote:
> 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>
>>>> 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,
>>>> 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
>>>> 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 G. Combs
> Senior Technical Writer
> Polycom, Inc.
> richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
> rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom