On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 11:39:14 -0700 JC Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 09:48 AM 7/6/02, David W. Tamkin wrote:
>> and either (a) I follow the common practice of adding "[off-list from >> <listname>]" to the subject ... > Common? I've *never* had email identified in that manner. I suspect its a subculture. It was new to me about 3 years ago when I ran across it on the SVLUG list via a Rick Moen rant. I don't know if I simply didn't notice it before that, but I see it quite often now. It may also be that my list demographics have moved to better match the population that uses OFF-LIST flags, or just that a significant percentage of those who send me off-list mail are also recipients of Rick Moen rants. Dunno. That all said adding an OFF-LIST tag seems both reasonable and valuable. It makes something explicit and polite that helps the recipient handle the mail appropriately. > When I read the email, I can see the headers of who it is (and isn't) > sent to. When I reply, I select "reply". If the sender has put the > list address as the reply-to, the reply message is going to be > addressed back to the sender, if not the reply message is going to be > sent to the author. I've gotten lazy. I use group-reply everywhere, even for private mail (which works as group-reply is equivalent to standard reply for personal mail). The only time I use standard reply is when I'm very conciously deciding to limit distribution. > Nope. I NEVER just "change it to point to the list". When dealing > with a list that leaves reply-to set to the author, (such as this > list) and desiring to reply to the whole list (and not just the > author, as in this particular case), I select "reply to all" to get > the list address in the reply message, and then delete all extraneous > addresses (often including duplicates) as needed. A bothersome extra > step, but I feel that netiquette is important. Fair dinkum and very well within your rights in controlling and limiting the distribution of messages you author. Do remember however that this is a private consensus as there is a reasonable probability that some of the addresses you are removing would prefer to receive a second "courtesy copy". After all, if they didn't they would have set Reply-To themselves or otherwise trimmed the distribution list... <Insert rant here about MUAs which don't allow easy ad-hoc Reply-To setting> -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. [EMAIL PROTECTED] He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
