[NCLUG] users only

[mike cullerton]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2002, at 10:50 AM, Matt Taggart wrote:

>
> mike cullerton writes...
>
>> here! here!
>>
>> nothing like punishing the overwhelming majority of 'good' people because
>> a couple 'bad' people can't figure out how to send an off-list personal
>> response.
>
> That funny I see it exactly the opposite. Nearly every other list out 
> there
> does not munge reply-to and a "reply" goes to the sended. Why should we 
> punish
> everyone who is used to this behavior(and thus accidentially send private
> messages to the list) just because a few people don't know the difference
> between "reply" and "reply all"?
>
> Mike, you're right that it is "6 of one, half dozen of another". So why 
> don't
> we follow the accepted standard?
>

well, as others have mentioned, if "reply to sender" has become the 
standard, it is a relatively recent standard.

i have been reading lists since they all ran on bitnet. back in the day, 
they _all_ had responses going back to the list. it's a discussion list 
for chrissake!

it seems to me, that when replying to a posting on a discussion list, the 
standard desire is for the message to go to the list and the original 
sender shouldn't get two copies.

our new policy means we have to edit headers to achieve this desire.

doesn't make sense to me,
mike