Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(August 1996)
 

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

Subject: Re: Reply from Compuserve
From: james @ sagarmatha . com (James C. Armstrong)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 05:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: list-managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <Pine . SUN . 3 . 93 . 960806045004 . 28512A-100000 @ katie . vnet . net> from "murr rhame" at Aug 6, 96 05:00:04 am

According to unnamed sources, murr rhame is alleged to have written
=> On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Chip Rosenthal wrote:
=> > Jim Osborn writes:
=> > > Really bad idea to point the Reply-To: at the list.
=> > Seconded.  I've got a paper that beats this issue to a bloody pulp.
=> > It's at <http://www.unicom.com/FAQ/reply-to-harmful.html>.  Unless
=> > you are dead set in your ways (pro or con), I'd urge folks to take
=> > a gander.
=> I'm not dead set in favor of Reply-To: list-address.  On the other hand,
=> I've been hosting and or listowning several lists with a few hundred
=> subscribers each.  All are under listproc with the Reply-To pointing to
=> the list.  Other than the rare misdirected private reply, I've had no
=> problems.  I've never seen a loop with listproc.  I will look at you
=> article on the issue.  

The lists that I administer are intended for group discussions; by
concensus of the members we feel that Reply-To is the best solution.
Group replies, such as this message, result in some folks receiving
multiple copies, since all too often people do not edit the To:
line in headers, if that is even an option in their mailer.  Most
of my list members are not computer savvy.

(I note that even some of the list manager members replying to this
thread have sent double notes, due to not editing the headers!
If we, who are expected to be among the most email-savvy, are too
lazy to do this, or forget, how can we fairly expect our list
members to do the same?)

This begs the question:  Should we all be required to add this "burden"
to our list members because a large ISP refuses to conform to accepted
standards and a published RFC?  If so, what is the value of other
RFC's?

=> My Compu$erve subscribers have no more problems than any other group of
=> subscribers (filled mailboxes, new address and similar admistrivia).  My
=> biggest pains are the bounce-forevers [tm] from the UK.

I set my error-return address to a filter that attempts to perform
some basic administrative functions, such as unsubscribing addresses
that are returned as non-existant.  The messages that get bounced
back as being sent to the list but not from a subscriber (it is a
closed list) are not filtered that way, instead, I look at each to
see if a subscriber's address has changed, etc...  Since the list
gets somewhere around 40 messages a day, if a mailbox for a Compuserve
user is filled, and I'm out of town for a couple days, that's a lot
of mail to filter.

Since most of my subscribers are UK, could you please explain the
"bounce-forevers"?  
-- 
James C. Armstrong, Jr.      | It's time to taste what you most fear
james @
 sagarmatha .
 com (home)  | Right Guard will not help you here.
                             | Brace yourself, my dear!
                             | It's a holiday in Cambodia!


Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Reply from Compuserve
From: murr rhame <murr @ vnet . net>
Next: Re: Unsubscribing 3rd party from various lists?
From: bill @ celestial . com (Bill Campbell)
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Reply from Compuserve
From: murr rhame <murr @ vnet . net>
Next: Re: Reply from Compuserve
From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho @ ifi . uio . no>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com