Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(May 2001)

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse?
From: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier @ ripco . com>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:24:10 -0500 (CDT)
To: list-managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <200105281700 . f4SH0Fh01295 @ plaidworks . com> from "Chuq Von Rospach" at May 28, 2001 10:08:11 AM

When I said,

T> Blind faith in reply-to-all to do the right thing magically without the
T> user's reviewing its choices is not perfect either.

Chuq replied,

V> which goes back to previous discussions here that reply needs to be
V> tri-state: reply to author, reply to list, and reply to all.

Quad-state, really: reply to author, reply to list, reply to list and author,
and reply to administrator.  Of those, list-and-author is needed least, ex-
cept perhaps on moderated discussion lists or discussion lists with slow dis-
tributions, and never on announcement lists (because the author is usually
the same person as the administrator).

[I had a digest-mode member who had sent his unsub request to the list, as
 commonly happened; I replied with sent my form letter explaining that such
 things should be sent to the -request address and that I'd be happy to deal
 with the matters in his message when it arrived in my admin mailbox.  When
 he responded to that (its Reply-To: pointed to -request, so he couldn't get
 that wrong) he complained that I shouldn't be setting up traps by delibe-
 rately directing Reply-To: to a wrong address!  Yes, the next time he was
 going to write, it was going to be about a subscription service matter, so
 in his view all digest issues had to go out to all digest-mode members with
 Reply-To: pointing to -request.  I explained to him that there are any num-
 ber of things that people could think of sending while reading a digest
 issue of the list, each with a proper place to be sent to, and Reply-To:
 could point to only one.
 He reminded me of the AOLer on the list who, the first time he found a di-
 gest issue converted into a 2-Kb preview and a downloadable file, demanded
 that all digest issues be kept to 2Kb or shorter.]

JCL gave reasons for keeping a list RTL, including:

L> 2) Private off-list discussions would be encouraged,
L> disenfranchising lurkers or non-thread participants.

"Encouraged"?  Not true; people have reply-to-all commands.  Lawrence's other
reasons might apply to that particular list, but that one just doesn't wash. 

How are off-list discussions encouraged?  Does a spirit appear over the
shoulder of a member as he or she reads mail from the list, saying, "I'll
give you $10.00 to reply privately instead of publicly"?

An RTL list *dis*courages off-list discussions, no argument there (well, no
argument about whether it's the case, but perhaps an argument about whether
that's good or bad or mixed); but to say that an RTS list *en*courages them
is not equivalent.

Indexed By Date Previous: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse?
From: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>
Next: Re: test messages etc
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse?
From: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>
Next: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse?
From: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>

Search Internet Search