At 10:08 AM -0500 11/19/98, Vince Sabio wrote:
>>be my guest. Just understand that you're wrong.... (grin)
>
> In all seriousness, though (okay, I know you were serious, Chuq, but
> just go with me on this <g>), I really think that it's a matter of
> preference.
I'll more or less agree. I think it's also strongly driven by the list
content. There are times when it *is* appropriate to coerce reply-tos.
We do this, for instance, on beta-test lists at apple, because the
entire purpose is to make sure the discussions get onto the list. But I
used to be a strong coercion constituent. I've run lists both ways --
in fact, over time, I've run THE SAME lists both ways in many cases, as
I've tried things out and dealt with various technical issues (like
listproc 6.0c's braindeadedness....). And so I've got some good, solid
experience and history to go beyond "matter of preference" and "I like"
stuff. And for the typical conversational list, I feel coercion of
reply-to is wrong in almost all cases.
And I'll drop it at that, since all I'd do now is repeat what I wrote
yesterday, and if I didn't persuade folks then, I won't bore them by
trying again....
--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? <http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/>)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
<http://www.plaidworks.com/> + <http://www.lists.apple.com/>
