[EMAIL PROTECTED] (K W M) writes:
> Secondly, the reason the list is so quiet is because of the way
> it is set up to reply to the individual, rather than the list as a
> whole. Most of the lists I'm on, automatically reply to the list,
> not the individual. For example, the post I'm replying to, is
> automatically addressed to you, Michael. Therefore, there is
> no list traffic unless I specifically change the To: field, or add
> the list address to the Cc: field.
There are reasons you do it this way, and reasons why having the
Reply-To: field set to the list is a (albeit minor) bad thing.
Yes, it would make it trivially easier to reply to the list, but most
mailing list software _already_ has a command to followup to a list
rather than the individual poster (in gnus, it's (f)ollowup instead of
(r)eply, and works identically to newsgroups. There are equivalents
in elm, pine, and VM, even Netscape, I believe).
Second, if a person sending mail to the list had a legitimate reason
to use Reply-To: (e.g., I've sent mail from work and wanted replies
sent home), having the mailing list set one would make any other use
impossible.
Third, the same people who don't understand their mail software well
enough to reply to the list when they want to aren't going to
understand their MUAs well enough to keep from accidentally sending
mail to the list when they want it to be private. Believe me, I've
seen it happen often, and you have to decide which is worse --
accidentally mailing messages privately (they can always be reposted)
or accidentally mailing messages publically (hard to get _that_ genie
back into the bottle).
There are probably other reasons. For a more technical version of
this, refer to:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> You've mentioned that there are over 200 subscribers to the
> list, but it is very quiet. A list discussion is generated when
> everyone on the list can follow the threads. As soon as private
> replies are generated, the thread dies.
200 isn't that many, honestly. It depends on the group, and having a
list that's 99% lurkers isn't so uncommon. Perhaps posting a regular
faq is called for to deal with the cases where it does go to email.
Honestly, I don't think the lack of a Reply-To: field is the key
factor here. It takes at least five or six active list members to
really get things rolling.
> I'm curious... how many people on the list, would like to see
> replies automatically go back to the list? How many like the
> way it is currently set up? (Don't reply to me about this...
> reply to the list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
I vote against (obviously (^:).
> How much trouble would it be to change this if a majority of
> the people want auto-replies to the list instead of the individual?
> I think that auto-replies to the list would improve traffic, and
> make the list much more lively, entertaining, informative,
> helpful, and so forth.
>From the software side, it's trivial. Michael could do it in under
five minutes.
> Like I said, MOST of the mailing lists I'm subscribed to,
> automatically reply to the list, not the individual. Even my
> LUG's mailing list is set up that way, and we have about
> 30 subscribers on the list, yet it is 1000x more lively than
> this list! Furthermore, the level of "user support" (for which
> the Linux community won an award recently) on my LUG's
> list is tremendous.
Again, I think it depends on the community more than the software.
Five or six active members can make all the difference.
> It would be nice if people felt comfortable enough to ask a
> beginner question here... without fearing RTFM flames.
I hope people do... Perhaps this another good reason for a regularly
posted faq. (Really, we're nice people here! (^:)
> There aren't enough books out there specifically for Linux.
> (We'll be welcoming your book, Michael.) Nor can we, as
> individuals, be expected to buy every book on a subject...
And another reason for a faq... (^:
I suppose now that I've brought it up, I'm morally obligated to
volunteer for the effort, so I will. The only caveat is that I might
be moving in the near future and therefore might be temporarily
unavailable at some point, but other than that, I'm willing to help.
doubt
--
Douglas Triggs -- Sysadmin, Programming Ninja, and Zuul-Fearing American
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Blah, blah, blah... http://www.lensflare.com/~doubt
