Hi Richard,

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.

Paul


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>
>>> 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
> ------
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to