Ahem...
...I'm with Riley on this.
As usual, his ability to discern the obvious is remarkable.
eB
>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