David W. Tamkin writes:
> (Note: I am one of the people who tried to talk Chip out of munging before he
> saw the light on his own.
Well...it was a little more than an independant discovery. As I
mentioned in the note, broadcasting a personal reply to one of my own
lists was the catalyst. The *polite* and *reasoned* comments from
you and others had a lot to do with realizing why it ought to change.
In fact, because of the way I arrived at my position on the issue, I
toned portions of the original rhetoric while editing the note. (I've
even renamed the note reply-to-harmful.html instead of -evil, although
the old name continues to be supported in the interim.) I don't think
it is productive making people defensive over this issue.
> That said, the lists I run offer default public
> reply as a discouraged option and one has a sublist which, by its nature,
> justifies default public replies, but as a general rule I am very strongly
> in favor of default private replies.)
I think there probably are *specialized* cases that justify it. I
also think offering it as a depreciated option, if you can afford the
administrative overhead, is acceptable. I would hope, however, that
folks are encouraged to learn about their mailer and select the unmunged
presentation when possible. After all, the guy (or gal) who selects
the munged subscription out of ignorance could become a list administrator
Chip Rosenthal Old men sing about their dreams. Women laugh and
Unicom Systems Development children scream. And the band keeps playin' on.
For a good time: http://www.unicom.com/john-hiatt/
PGP key: http://www.unicom.com/personal/chip.html