On 5 Feb 2003 at 11:01, Shing-Fat Fred Ma wrote: > Just out of curiosity, why would they not receive a reply? I mean, > if they are on the list.
I believe in my original reply I addressed several reasons why they may not be on the same list. They may be lazy, they may be on a sub-list, etc. I take it there are no sub-lists of the VNC list, but I wasn't sure of that when I saw the vnc-tight-list address. > In my case, it's not a matter of being offended by personal communication. > It's a matter of managability. The purpose digest gets circumvented by > this. Anyone subscribing to the digest gets the same thing twice. And > the volume of list email increases not just twice. I don't subscribe to digests except for my own, and those I mearly scan before deleting to ensure the function is working properly. I do understand the point, though, and I'll certainly take it into consideration in the future. However, I think that if one participates in a public mailing-list there is an inherent danger that one may receive EMail. :) > Would a subscriber to the nondigest list get it twice, one from the > respondent and another from the list? Yes. > If you received the email from the list (whichever > list), the recipients of that list should get responses > to the list (otherwise there is a problem elsewhere that > needs fixing). Not to nitpick, but to explain, and I understand I was mistaken in this case, but... Usually true. Not always. Sub-lists are not unheard of, especially when the subjects are as closely related as "VNC" and "Tight VNC". Not cross- posting in the To: header can help to remove any ambiguity from the person's mind. (Cross post in the BCC field). > The respondent always has the option of responding to all > lists, but that's not his/her obligation. Sub-lists usually don't allow non-subscribers to post because it can cause duplicate posts to every single subscriber, not just a single person on digest- mode. > If in fact that is not a problem with the list > administration, then I erred in responding to the list > as if it were. I have apologized for that. No apologies necessary to me. I'm just trying to fill in some answers for you, not flame. > To be frank, I don't work in the area of processing > email, so I'm not sure what Reply-All does in all > circumstances. It usually collects the addresses in Sender:, From:, Reply-to:, To:, CC:, and BCC: (most EMail clients don't actually strip the BCC list, they just don't display it by default), and then it removes duplicates. Using reply-all just saves typing; it's easier to delete incorrect addresses than type correct ones. > If there is a Reply-To to avoid any ambiguity, it should > also be the list. I agree. But since it cannot be altered if it was already added by the sender's client or added by a previous MTA, the address you're *actually* replying to is something you're always going to have to check on *any* mailing-list. A small percentage of the time, the results will not be what you expected, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. > If it is the list administration that is automatically including the > poster on the Reply-To field, I prefer otherwise. Actually, the behavior you're unhappy with is caused at present by lack of any Reply-to header at all. This message will contain one, but that's added inside my network -- without it, the MTA wouldn't know which of 2 dozen domains this message came from. The list-server does not add one. -- Pete Phillips -- San Antonio, Texas -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
