Hang on folks. I believe there is some confusion here.
The choice here is NOT between public or private discussion!!! Changing the
default only means that to send to the list, you have to CHOOSE to send to
the list. Just an extra mouse click or two. Nothing changes with regard to
the public or private nature of the discussions!!!!
Again. The choice is only whether a message is automatically sent to
everyone on the list, or manually sent to everyone on the list.
A message that is worthy of the attention of the entire list certainly
deserves the deliberate intention, however small, of manually choosing 'the
list'.
Here's what happened with Tom and me. I sent a message to the group. Tom
received it, and reasonably thought it was from me (as it was), but thought
it was a personal message. We send personal messages to each other fairly
regularly, so this was a logical assumption, especially as my name appears
in the 'from' box. Tom then replied to me using the reply button. A mistake,
but an easy one to make.
I then assumed that the message from Tom was personal, which in content and
intent it was, and used the reply button again to send my return message to
Tom. It went to the list instead. Another mistake, even easier to make.
Thus two personal messages got sent to the list.
As Bruce says, its simple to avoid this sort of mistake, but difficult to
remember to check the return address of emails, especially when, as was the
case this time, the content of the emails are personal, but incorrectly
addressed!
This means that all of us have to check the reply address of every message
we get from anyone who might also happen to be on the list, in case they
have inadvertently sent us a personal email via the list.
I personally think that the default button should be set to NOT go to the
list. Surely a message for everyone warrants the small effort of manually
sending it to the list.
It is much more likely that the mistake Tom and I made will happen than the
other way around. That is, were the default set the other way around, it is
unlikely that someone would accidentally send a message only to one person
when s/he means to send it to the entire list.
At least, I hope we don't just automatically send messages to the entire
list, without deliberate intention.
Also, in terms of mistakes, the latter, that is sending a public email to
only one person instead of everyone, is much less a mistake than sending a
personal email to the entire list.
The mistake of sending a public email to one person when you meant to send
it to everyone can be easily rectified by sending the message again, to the
list.
The mistake of sending a personal email to the entire list when you meant to
send it to only one person, cannot be rectified.
If as a group, we are too lazy? to manually send our messages to the entire
list, then may I suggest that the 'from' box of all messages sent via the
list be set to automatically show 'shakuhachi list' rather than the name of
the person who sent it. The sender's name can be in the body of the message.
That way, inattentive people like myself will be more likely to realise when
a message is from the group and when it is a personal one.
Best regards, Riley
--Dr. Riley Lee Sound of Bamboo PO Box 939 Manly NSW 1655 Australia Tel: +61 02 9976 6904 mobile: +61 0414 626 453 www.rileylee.net
> From: Bruce Jones <bjones@weber.ucsd.edu> > Reply-To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu > Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:17:11 -0800 > To: shakuhachi@weber.ucsd.edu > Subject: Mailing List Settings > > > Back in the good old days of the Internet, before the advent of > POP clients and attachments, there was a "To" line and a "From" > line in the message header. Your mail program offered you two > choices: reply to everyone who got the original message, and > reply to originator only. > > You had to make the choice, as there was no default. > > Today, with the advent of the "Reply-To" line and a single "Reply" > button on GUI mail clients (Outlook, Eudora, Netscrape Mail), the > default is chosen for you. Now, even if you use a "legacy" mail > program like I do, there is no distinction made between reply to > originator and reply to everyone. The Reply-To line is in control. > > The result is exemplified in at least two dimensions in yesterday's > personal-made-public exchange between Riley and Tom, and this > morning, when I fell prey to the same problem in my response to > Paul Hirsh's request for a change to digest. > > Riley has written and asked that I change the default Reply-To line > from everyone to originator. This being a public list, I am putting > it to a vote. > > Each setting has its positive and negative aspects. > > With the Reply-To set to everyone (current state), the possibility > that messages intended for one person will to out to the list. > > With Reply-To set to originator only, there is a reduced risk that > personal messages will be made public but there is an increased > likelihood that messages intended for the entire list will only go > to the originator. > > (BTW: I think that the change in setting is, in large part, > responsible for the increase in list traffic because messages > intended for the list but sent only to the originator under the > old regiem, are now coming to everyone - which may or may not be a > "Good Thing" (TM) depending on your POV.) > > If this issue interests you one way or another, please vote for one > of the following: > > Reply-To line set to return responses to the list (public) > Reply-To line set to return responses to the originator (private) > > Which say ye? > > bj > > - >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 03 2003 - 09:09:51 PST