2008/6/16 Lisi Reisz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Monday 16 June 2008 09:19:14 Harold Fuchs wrote: > > I'm also not convinced your mailer is being polite. I deliberately set my > > "reply to" address to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to avoid getting personal > > messages. > Your > > mailer would not honour that etiquette if you used Reply All to one of my > > messages. > > Since I understood that we all make an effort to reply personally to > unsubscribed posters, I can't quite follow this. I have to make a > conscious > effort to "reply all", so why is this different from, say, copying and > pasting? > > Lisi > > No, it isn't different. In fact it's easier for you than for me because I have to copy/paste. All I was getting at is that unless you make a special effort *not* to Reply-all, your mailer would break the ettiquette and send your message to the From address which I have explicitly said "please don't use". I'm not accusing *you* of breaking the etiquette. My view is that your mailer doesn't follow the intention of the RFC. That's all I was saying. Unfortunately, as Mike Scott said, the RFC says "should" and not "must" which is why I was using words like "polite" and "etiquette" instead of "rules" and "incorrect".
-- Harold Fuchs London, England Please reply *only* to [email protected]
