Revisiting an old plea to the listmom: Could we go back to the old (and normal) mailing list practice of Reply-To:<list> ? Since the new regime, I've lost track of how many times people have had to be reminded to post replies to the list, as in this case:

At 20:00 -0500 031027, William Hooper wrote:
Please send replies to the list.

Johnny Miller said:
 I just checked my wincnc and it said the main port was 5902 and the http
 port was 5802.  How do set up the RFB port?

Using TightVNC huh? It's been a while, but the "main" port should mean the RFB port. You just need to forward that like you do the HTTP. From your previous example it looked like you were trying to use display :1, but this looks like display :2... So you are getting there by typing "http://myexternalip:5802";?

Like most users (including most list users), Johnny Miller is in the habit of hitting <Reply>, writing his reply, and sending it ... which for this list means sending to the wrong place - to the originator rather than the list. This is my only list (of five) that functions without a Reply-To: header, and I assume that is true for most other people. Consequently, people often slip up here.


The simple fact is that under the current regime there is *no* header which consistently identifies the list. I just did a scan of posts since the regime change, and find that, of all posters, roughly:
75% identify the list in the <To> header, as the listmom instructed;
20% (including the listmom) identify the list in the <Cc> header;
5% identify the list in the <From> header.
Also, since the change to elminate <Reply-To>,
1 post *has* used the <Reply-To> header, and
1 post has used the obscure <Resent-To> header. (There were no replies to that one, so we never got to test what would happen.)


The result is a list which has become more messy and less pleasant to use [FWIW, since the change I have been less inclined to post to this list, and suspect I'm not alone in that] ... not to mention prone to slip-ups of the kind cited above. Whenever we have discussed this issue, the majority of posters (and IMHO the best of the reasoning have favored the use of Reply-To. While this is not a democracy - listmom rules - that majority view might be worth reconsidering. Could we go back to using Reply-To:vnc-list?

--
John
_______________________________________________
VNC-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To remove yourself from the list visit:
http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list

Reply via email to