In message <9707221453.AA13988@unicode.org> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> Pete> Let's hear it for that Reply-To line. :-( Obviously these should
> Pete> have gone to the sender and *not* to the list. But the list is
> Pete> trying to be helpful. Silly list. Getting rid of the From field
> Pete> pointing to the list is great. Leaving the Reply-To pointing to the
> Pete> list is unnecessary; I can use the Reply-All command if I want to
> Pete> talk to the list.
Mark Leisher replied:
> I have to disagree. The vast majority of the time (like this one), I want to
> reply to the list. I have never understood why people subscribe to a public
> forum and then want to maintain personal communication as the default.
I agree entirely. As one of the moderators of the email@example.com
list on transliteration, where we tried both ways on this list, we
found that defaulting to the list is what kept it alive. Otherwise
discussion - and getting an idea of consensus on specific issues - is
reduced as peoplle only post to the original authors.
-- John Clews (Chair of ISO/TC46/SC2: Conversion of Written Languages)
SESAME Computer Projects, 8 Avenue Road, Harrogate, HG2 7PG, England Email: Converse@sesame.demon.co.uk; tel: +44 (0) 1423 888 432
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:36 EDT