andy preston wrote: > I think this is what you are talking about > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > > Andy > -- > andy preston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andy, I took a quick read, and it seems that the point is that the Reply-To shouldn't automatically be modified by the list administrator, be it a person or a program. It is a lengthy article, but the point I got was that the decision should be left to the sender. I checked my outgoing mail, and I do not have a Reply-To field. Perhaps you could confim if it is in the copy that you received. If so, what does the field say? Regardless of whether automatic munging is implemented (that's my first exposure to what munging is), I believe my points about forum etiquitte still stand. That is, I'd like to join the forum, in digest form, because I find the digest form manageable. And I do want to give back to the community when I can, since I've benefitted from it alot (and still do). I chose the digest to avoid individual emails in my mailbox; but even for individuals that are not getting the digest, I can't imagine anyone wanting to duplicate the emails they get. Why is it even necessary? Assuming that there are cases when duplicated mailing is appropriate, it is still confusing if the person receiving the email directly doesn't know that it is being copied to the group. You wouldn't do this with a paper letter (you indicate cc's so that everyone knows what kind of communication it is). The fact that the text is conveyed electronically doesn't change that. Not only is it improper, it fragments the thread and circumvents purpose and benefits of the forum. So even if munging wasn't implemented, the responsibility to follow considerate etiquette then falls on the shoulders of the individual senders. Granted, the whole issue of why such a protocol is (in my opinion) a big deal might be may not be agreeable to everyone; it might even be simply an issue of mailer setup. The latter reason is why I was raised the idea of having popular mailer setup info in the welcome...assuming that the general readership agrees that duplicately received email via the sender and the list is not generally desirable, and that it should be clearly indicated in cases where it is warranted (if ever). It is also assuming that it is practical, because there are probably many mailer programs out there. Regardless of whether this welcome info actually provided, the issues of forum etiquette is still valid. On the other hand, if the sender decides that the information is only appropiate to share with one recipient, I think the single recipient would appreciate if the reasons for that were in fact valid. It would certainly not be the case if the email was also sent to the group. If the recipient wasn't made aware of this, courtesy demands that he/she not ignore a personal email, and in fact respond to it in a timely manner. This would be particularly true if in fact you think you have information that might help; it's doing no one any good to have it sitting up there in your head. In that case, you make the appropriate compromises in other priorities to respond. In contrast, a forum makes it easier for the recipient to participate only as his/her circumstances permit. You realize that it's not just up to you to provide a response, and in someone much more experienced than you might pick up the ball. In any case, the sender isn't expecting you specifically to respond, so it's not rude to attend to your other priorities as you see fit. It is somewhat sobering to spend the time to treat a personal email with due respect, even though you can't imagine why it was sent as a personal email, and then find that in fact it was a mass email that wasn't indicated as such. Though it may not be the case, it would seem that you received a double dose because the sender wanted to keep all the bases covered. You should have given it the same priority as you would any other forum discusssion, which is what it should have been restricted to; the reailty is, we all have limited time and competing priorities, yet still want to respect the etiquette of personal communication, which is what you thought it was, even though there was no reason for it. Suppose that you received such personal (but not really) email. Even if you felt that the issue should have been public, you don't post the response publically because you were lead to believe that it was intended to be personal -- that's just proper etiquette, you respect the sender's wish to avoid pubicity. Then you find that it was actually a broadcast solicitation for help, but you restricted your response to the sender only. What is the point of having a forum if the sender is going to circumvent it with an independent channel of communication (a redundant one at that), which doesn't benefit anyone else? Fred -- Fred Ma, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Carleton University, Dept. of Electronics 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario Canada, K1S 5B6 _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
