Subject: Re: DSSSList administrivia From: DSSSList Owner <dssslist-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 14:10:56 -0400 (EDT) |
At 24 Jun 1998 10:34 -0700, Earl Hood wrote: > On June 24, 1998 at 09:37, DSSSList Owner wrote: > > > REPLIES GO TO THE LIST > > ====================== > > > > The reply address of DSSSList messages (and of digests) is > > dssslist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx so REPLIES GO TO THE LIST BY DEFAULT. If > > you want to reply to just the author of a post, you should change the > > "To:" field in your reply. > > I highly recommend you look at > <URL:http://www.miranova.com/~steve/reply-to-harmful.html>. > > And since you sent the reply-to the dssslist, they will get this message > also since you have bypassed my mailers default behaviour of selective > replying (as noted in above URL). No, I had not forgotten or ignored this. Your message was sent while I was on vacation, and since coming back I've only now had time to get to it. Nor do I mind discussing this on the list, since it affects more than you and me. I have read (actually, re-read) the "'Reply-To' Munging Considered Harmful" page, and I still favour replies going to the list for the following reasons: 1. This list is available as single messages and as daily digests, and both single messages and digest messages have their "Reply-To" field set to dssslist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that everybody's replies go to the same place. I subscribe to digests of different lists where the "Reply-To" field is not set to the posting address for single messages, and it is onerous to firstly remember and secondly enter the correct posting address for the list when replying. Sometimes people forget and post to the digest address, and it is confusing to receive a single message from a list for which you usually receive the digest. Any messages erroneously sent to the digest address are also going to miss being archived. I believe that the correct behaviour is that the "Reply-To" field of the digest should be set to the posting address for single messages. Since people can and do switch between receiving single messages and receiving digests, single messages should also have their "Reply-To" address set to the posting address. The "'Reply-To' Munging Considered Harmful" document makes the point that it is difficult to remember that a list has the "Reply-To" field set to the posting address; it is much more difficult to remember that you have different behaviour when replying to a digest message and replying to a single message. 2. I don't share the writer's faith in either people or technology. Speaking for myself, it usually takes me two tries to post to a list that does not have the "Reply-To" field set to the posting address of the list: one try where I hit the key combination for "Reply" because that's what I ordinarily do, and a second try where I delete the first message buffer and remember to hit the key combination for a follow-up message. When the "Reply-To" field is set to the posting address, I have no such trouble. A follow-up or group-reply message (for a list that does not have the "Reply-To" field set) will ordinarily be sent to both the author and the list that relayed the message. This results in two copies of the message being sent to the author, one direct and one relayed by the list. In principle, the original author's mail software should detect the duplication and delete the second copy that it sees. It is my experience that, in practice, the time lag between receiving the direct message and receiving the low-priority message relayed by the list defeats any message ID caching or comparison, and the original author receives two copies of the message. When the "Reply-To" field is set to the posting address, no-one needs to receive multiple copies. I have been on lists where people repeatedly receiving two copies of messages have become extremely irate about the unnecessary volume and posted messages requesting that responders reply only to the list. While it seems that many people, not including myself, are able to post follow-up messages rather than straight replies, it also seems that many of these people do not then take the time to remove the original author from the recipient list, even after being requested to do so. When the "Reply-To" field is set to the posting address, no-one gets irritated by multiple messages, and no-one has to remember to remove the original author from the list of recipients. When a thread attracts discussion from several people, and the "Reply-To" field is not set to the posting address, and responders neglect to remove previous authors, then the address of each responder accretes to messages in the thread so that everybody who ever posted about the thread receives two copies of the message, whether or not they remain interested in the topic. While the number of extra copies being transmitted remains small compared to the number of copies being transmitted by the list software, this does increase the probability that someone will become irritated with receiving multiple copies. When the "Reply-To" field is set to the posting address, this does not occur. Regards, Tony Graham ======================================================================= Tony Graham Mulberry Technologies, Inc. Phone: 301-315-9632 17 West Jefferson Street, Suite 207 Fax: 301-315-8285 Rockville, MD USA 20850 email: tgraham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ======================================================================= DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Thread | XML Developers' Conference, August , Jon Bosak | |
Date | XML Developers' Conference, August , Jon Bosak | |
Month |