Greetings: I just thought I'd throw my own hat into the ring. I'm trying out my new, asbestos-free, flame-retardant underwear. ;^)
> -----Original Message----- > Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:14:29 -0500 > From: "Michael P. Reilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Tutor] Replying to the tutor-list > To: "ALAN GAULD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Tutor <tutor@python.org> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On 2/16/07, ALAN GAULD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > However, the "standard behavior" at the time was that > > > replies went back to the mailing list, not to the original sender. > > > > But the mailing list was the original sender so it was all wonderfully > > consistent. Reply goes to sender only, which happens > > to be the list server... > > > > Ah, the good ol' days :-) > > > > Alan g. > > > > Alan, > > The issue is not what the mailing list does, but what the user expects and > should do. I agree. However, it seems to me that the expectation in this case is divided into two contradictory positions. (The division seems pretty even to me, but that's not necessarily a critical point.) > Listserv was the first mailing list system from 23 years ago. > The users expected, as standard behavior, that replies would go to the > mailing list, not to the original sender. You had made a claim that more > than 10 years ago (when listserv was still in use) that the standard > behavior was that mailing lists was that users would reply to the original > sender. I'm just offering up one, very well-known example to refute that. Again, I agree. That is an excellent counter-example. To me, it demonstrates that this division of expectation existed from the beginning of the technology. > Myself, I'm not a person who cares how the mailing list goes. I'll adapt. > But it does irk me when "standards" are applied because of > misunderstandings > of applications. For example, the usual convention is that people attach > their comments below the respondent's. At my work, they have tried to > convince me that the "standard" is to put it above simply because Outlook > does that. Don't get me started on that. I just got out of a minor fire fight on another forum over that one. :^( > When making arguments, please make the arguments on a technical basis, not > on "this was how it has been done in the past". I would agree with this, too, if this were a technical issue. But it's not. Read on. > If that was the case, then > all the stuff you get in your mailbox isn't "spam" since spam related only > to cross-posting on newsgroups (anyone remember the Spam Wars?). However, > the general collective has decided to expand the standard definition. > > Times change, standards can evolve. Sometimes not for the better. Make an > argument for keeping the "standards" how they should be technically, not > historically. > While I agree that appeals to historical authority aren't very helpful in cases like this, assertions of technical superiority are equally unproductive. Again, IMHO, this not a technical issue. Ring vs. bus vs. star network topology is a technical issue. This is an issue of convenience, which is intensely personal. The rightness or wrongness of either position is subjective (purely so, I believe) and technical discussion does not clarify. That's why discussions like this so often turn into religious wars (as this one nearly did a few posts back). There is a technical issue that relates, however. Some posters have touched on it. Modern mail and news software should be flexible enough to accommodate the user's preference in this regard. A few are, apparently. Most are not. Why not? What should be done about it? Who has a Python implementation that makes the default "Reply to:" behavior configurable? Which is the most flexible? How can it be improved? These are questions that benefit from technical discussion. I'd like to see more posts on these topics, and less on whose personal preference is "correct". -Arcege > -- > There's so many different worlds, > So many different suns. > And we have just one world, > But we live in different ones. > ------------------------------ > Regards, Barry [EMAIL PROTECTED] 541-302-1107 ________________________ We who cut mere stones must always be envisioning cathedrals. -Quarry worker's creed _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
