Bill Freeman wrote:
>
> On the other hand, it now seems to me that you are saying that
> a bunch of us should type lots of extra characters so that you can
> avoid a tiny difference between the way you respond publicly versus
> the way you respond privately. I have no sympathy.
Don't be stupid. I said nothing even remotely resembling that.
I resent you putting such words on my keyboard. I stated my
personal opinion about what effect it would have on my
participation -- and that's it.
If the majority feels it's better not to have the reply-to, then
that's better for this particular list. But after a couple
of misdirected posts, it won't be worth the annoyance to me
to keep trying -- because the people I tried to communicate
with didn't get my message, and I WON'T EVEN KNOW.
Turn your argument around: The main problem here seems to be people
getting embarrassed by mail going to the list instead of privately.
How much sympathy do you have for *them*? They seem to be in the
same boat you'd put me. I have sympathy, but I continue to think
that the majority of the traffic should stay on the list, and
that such accidents are far more the exception than the rule. I
think that if reply-to is taken off, more messages will be lost
by people forgetting to reply-to-list than will be worth the
avoidance of red faces in the current situation. But that's just
my personal opinion.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/>
Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
Conference! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
