Re: [Swftools-common] on the mailing list itself

[Pablo Rodríguez]

On 11/11/2013 04:43 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2013, at 10:15, Pablo Rodríguez wrote:
> 
>> would it be possible that the default reply to a message from this list
>> would be the list itself and not its original sender?
>>
>> I mean this to avoid unwanted private replies. A mailing list such as
>> this is also a valuable resource for future reference.
> 
> I am just a reader of this list, not connected with this project, so
> take my suggestions in that light, but I will refer you to this article
> which explains why this is usually not done:
> 
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> 
> There are counterarguments, but this is the view to which I subscribe.
> 
> The main reason why people seem to want to make this change is for
> the benefit of people who do not understand how email programs work. But all
> this does is reinforce their incorrect assumptions. Instead, when
> someone inadvertently replies privately, I suggest we take the
> opportunity to educate the user on the use of the Reply All function.

Many thanks for your reply, Ryan.

I think it might be worth to discuss the point you make. I will not
relate to this list itself, but to the general policy of not setting a
reply to field (in mailing lists).

I have read before that setting a reply to is harmful. Sorry, I don’t
have time to read the article you point to.

I have only seen once the reply-to-mailing-list policy to be harmful: in
a mailing list of people in the academia that someone commented on the
cancer that he (or another person [I cannot remember, it was years ago])
suffered, intending to reply privately. It was a man near to retirement,
with no technical background (in fact, it wasn’t a technical list).
Fortunately, it was an international forum and the reply was in German
(less people could understand the message).

But I wouldn’t make a general rule from this absolute extraordinary
exception.

Mailing lists are also reference works. I mean, they can be searched
later. Private replies in mailing lists aren’t wrong «per se», but they
are wrong when they aren’t intended to be private.

I asked for a reply-to field in this mailing list because I end replying
privately when I forget to reply to the list.

There is nothing wrong in Thunderbird. Thunderbird replies fine when
using the “From” field (when no “Reply-to” field is set). Probably I’m
the buggy part on this, because I press the reply to instead of the
reply to list keyboard shortcut. But sorry, last time I checked I wasn’t
a cyborg (and my mind is full of other things).

I use computers to automate things I don’t have to keep in memory (yes,
my memory is an extremely scarce resource an it cannot be upgraded). The
vast majority of mailing lists I have been subscribed to use a reply-to
field. Most of them are technical. One of them doesn’t have the reply to
mailing list option, but one of the main developers complains when he
receives private replies. But this is weird.

I really hate when (mainly at work [I don‘t mean it here]), computers
are faulty programmed or configured, but people are expected not to make
any mistake. I know that you aren’t proposing this. But sometimes we
might forget that computers are supposed to avoid some human mistakes.
People aren’t there to correct computer faults.

I would like to comment your word on educating users. I know education
is a process. I know I must learn thousands of things I don’t know. But
I have been using personal computers for a while. And I cannot program
them, but I think I have a basic idea of how they might work.

I think I know how Thunderbird works (maybe my assumption is plainly
wrong). And Thunderbird hasn’t a feature that defaults the reply to the
list instead of the original author.

In this particular case (not my personal situation), education should be
renamed with reprogramming. I know that you don’t want that. But people
aren’t machines. They make mistakes. (Again, we aren’t cyborgs.)

My last issue on the benefits of the reply to all in mailing lists. It
is plainly a waste. Not because the original sender of the replied
message gets two copies of the same message (which mailing list software
can avoid), but because the reply is sent twice. This is waste, although
it isn’t printed on paper. And if a user isn’t subscribed, an extra
private copy should be requested.

Please, feel free to reply to my rather lengthy reply.

Best,


Pablo
-- 
http://www.ousia.tk