Thread
Index
Reply to:" setting on Strathspey
John Chambers
March 12, 2006, 3:05 p.m. (Message 44646)
Eric commented: | | This happens too often to all of us on Strathspey; always annoying and | sometimes embarrassing. | | Could you please reset the "Reply to:" setting for the list, so that | replies go to the original sender only, unless the replier explicitly sends | to the List ? | | There will still be errors (the opposite way), but the worst they will do | is that a reply to the List is delayed till the mistake is discovered. Well, I'm not sure that I'd agree with this. Such mistakes aren't really all that common. When was the last time we had two in one day? And quite often, they're fun to read. At worst, they're a minor waste of time, but nothing comparable to the daily spam that gets through even the best filters. 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 on a number of lists that default to reply-to-sender. They have a lot less traffic. But they're also lot less informative. You see a lot of questions, but you rarely see the answers, and there's no feeling of being a social group. I'd prefer that the strathspey list continue to default to reply-to-list. -- _, O John Chambers <:#/> <xx@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx> + <xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx> /#\ in Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth | |
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
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx wrote: > 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. > Me too. If the original message was sent to the list, not to an individual, the assumption should be that any reply will also go to the list. I subscribe to a number of lists, and I can only remember one where the default was reply to sender only, and that was so confusing that eventually the administrator changed the default to reply to list. However it should be standard practice for any e-mail user to double-check who the message is being sent to before hitting the send button! -Steve -- Steve Wyrick -- Concord, California
