Is this an issue of posting etiquette?
Shing-Fat Fred Ma
Mon Feb 3 04:26:01 2003
John Kaufmann wrote:
> I anticipated that I *should* have replied
> to you *on*list (because this really is still an issue of list
> concern), and so posted again to the list - after you replied to the
> same post sent privately, with copy to the list. (Anyone trying to
> follow this thread might find the order confusing. :) I will not
> again make the mistake of replying off-list unless I am convinced
> that it really *should be private.
Here's the thing with this new way of doing the headers.
I even can't tell if you've copied the list or not. It's not
in any of the headers. But it sort of sounds like it, from
the tone. How do we respect privacy if we can't tell
whether a piece of communication is public or private?
> >Despite the website that one respondent referred
> >to, I believe that the reply-to list should be coerced
> >to be to the list only.
> Yes. During The Change a couple months ago, we had posts with
> duelling web sites, particularly
> "Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful
> "Reply-To" Munging Considered Useful
> Presumably Andy sent you only the first; I think it's useful to see
> them side-by-side. [FWIW, I find the latter more compelling on the
> substance, as well as more gracefully written.] As you say,
> >It's easy enough to turn a
> >thread into a personal communication, but look at
> >all the extraneous traffic and individual emails from
> >not maintaining a clear distinction between forum
> >and independent communication. There's no reason
> >why the protocol of a newsgroup wouldn't benefit
> >this forum. There, the default reply is to the group.
> All true. I'm pretty sure a majority of the list, if asked, would agree.
> Likewise, Yahoo groups - probably the largest administration of
> mailing lists - *always* set "Reply-To:<list>", and somehow never
> have the autoresponder problems which prompted the change in this
> list. Oh, well...
Say goodby to the digest. After all, what's the point of
having a digest if you're going to get random frequent
emails throughout the day.
P.S. I was sincere in my apology for the admonishing
tone, but the points that I presented in my ranting emails
are no less valid because of that. This "Change" is really
not good. So much confusion and disruption to ones
medium of communication.
Fred Ma, email@example.com
Carleton University, Dept. of Electronics
1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario
Canada, K1S 5B6