Re: [Fsfe-uk] Reply-To on the mailing list

[Paul Tansom]

** Chris Croughton <address@hidden> [2003-08-26 10:21]:
> > >
> > Was this intentionally off list? ;) I assumed most would want the 
> > reply-list behaviour since a recent poll on the multizilla list yielded 
> > a unanimous thumbs up. Well if it's already been decided I should 
> > perhaps apologise? <shrug>
> 
> Damn, no, it was supposed to be to the list.  Which is an excellent (if
> unintentional) example of why the Reply-To needs munging...
> 
** end quote [Chris Croughton]

I'm going to chip in and support Mark here, if nothing else to try and
make up for stirring up the old cookie on another list :-)

Forgetting the fact that by reply-to munging obliterates the reply-to
set by the client, hence making it impossible to reply off list in some
cases, I shall use a genuine case of my own.

I replied to a list post a while back to give some advise, and as part
of my reply, since I run a business and was local I decided to mention
this in case it was of interest (note this was not a sales pitch, but a
quick comment - I also gave a good amount of free advise).  I decided,
however, that it may offend some on the list, and therefore an off list
reply was best.  Unfortunately the list uses reply-to munging and I fell
foul of this and replied to the list.

As luck would have it this sparked a positive response in terms of
support for the wealth of experience available from professionals and
noting that, so long as it was used sparingly, the odd reminder that you
did this for a living was acceptable.  There were also those grateful
for the information that would otherwise not have reached the list.

All this is completely dependent on the individual list though, and on
another list I may well have been extremely unpopular.  Alternatively I
may have included more sensitive information or views (not usually my
style, but there you go).  Either way I would prefer to mistakenly send
an email to one person instead of many (that would include that one),
than send to many instead of one - far less potentially damaging, and I
have done it the other way round on more than one occasion.

Just my 2p, er, perhaps 5p worth :-)

-- 
Paul Tansom:  -  contact address@hidden for more information
Internet and Intranet Solutions   --   http://www.aptanet.com/