Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(August 1995)
 

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

Subject: Re: Are we missing the point?
From: Dave Barr <barr @ math . psu . edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 09:46:23 -0400
To: List-Managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 22 Aug 1995 04:41:45 PDT." <199508221141 . EAA11458 @ bbfm . di . com>
References: <199508221141 . EAA11458 @ bbfm . di . com>

In message <199508221141 .
 EAA11458 @
 bbfm .
 di .
 com>, Todd Day writes:
>I think most of the arguments for/against Reply-To munging are
>missing the point of running a mailing list: to promote vigorous
>discussion of a particular topic among a large amount of people.

I don't think anyone here is missing the point.  We all realize
what mailing lists are for and why we use them.  The point is
there is a difference between promoting discussion and enforcing
discussion.  In the latter case (with a Reply-To) it makes it
harder for a person who _wants_ to reply personally to someone.
It ends up either stifling legitimate private confersations, or
promoting the sending accidental private replys to the list.

The point is, if someone wants to respond to the list, let them respond
to the list.  If they want to respond privately, let them respond
privately.  Don't make the decision for them.

--Dave


References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: not spam, and not net abuse either.
From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer <info-labview-request @ pica . army . mil>
Next: Re: Are we missing the point?
From: Christopher Davis <ckd @ loiosh . kei . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Are we missing the point?
From: Todd Day <today @ di . com>
Next: Re: Are we missing the point?
From: Christopher Davis <ckd @ loiosh . kei . com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com