strathspey@strathspey.org:44650

Volleyballjerry

Re: Reply to:" setting on Strathspey

March 12, 2006, 7:19 p.m. (Message 44650, in reply to message 44646)

In a message dated 03/12/2006 6:05:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
xx@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx writes:

> Making reply-to-sender the default would bias the list toward a  more
> person-to-person  default, and would decrease its interactive nature.
> It would increase the "Please send  replies  to  me,  too"  messages,
> which could easily be more numerous than the accidental messages.

I'm with John on this.  I wouldn't want to see it changed.  The vast majority 
of my comments upon a Strathspey commentary are destined for the list.  If I 
occasionally want to respond only to the sender personally, then I make a 
point of doing that.

Occasionally though the "reply to:" (Strathspey default) is missing entirely 
on a message arriving from the Strathspey, and quite ironically on John's own 
message of all things:

Subj:   Re: Reply to:" setting on Strathspey    
Date:   03/12/2006 6:05:26 AM Pacific Standard Time 
From:   xx@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx 
To: xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx, xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx    
Sent from the Internet (Details)

I've mentioned this before and still wonder why it occasionally occurs.  The 
reply default on John's own message was a personal default, and I've had to 
manually add the Strathspey e-mail address!!!

Robb Quint
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA