At 11:29 PM -0500 11/18/98, Vince Sabio wrote:
> Just for the record, I disagree with nearly every point made in that
> treatise. Overall, it is the list-owner equivalent of the GOOD TIMES
> virus hoax.
and just for the record -- I disagree with Vince. While the document
and I don't agree 100%, I find it very persuasive and right-on.
> In short, munging (or adding) the REPLY-TO header has some very nice
> benefits -- most notably (and then I'll step down off my soap box),
> lists that DO NOT implement a REPLY-TO <list> header require that you
> perform a "group" reply, also known as a "reply to all."
which is fine, IMHO.
Here's how I look at it. From the point of view of the naive/new user,
the Reply-To is impossible for them to over-ride. They don't know how,
and that only encourages chaff and accidental posts, not to mention
that users who want to reply privately can't.
On the other hand, users who want to go reply-to-all as default can. I
do, for instance. By *not* coercing reply-to, I leave the choice in the
hands of the author of the message. I find it very arrogant to assume I
know better than the author how a message should be sent, especially
since by coercing the reply-to, I make it DAMN hard for a user to
change it back, while if I don't coerce it, it's fairly easy to do the
opposite.
> This includes
> the original author in the reply. When the NEXT person does a "group"
> reply, the original author AND the secondary author are included. And
> all THREE of them are included on the third reply. And so it grows.
>
> This is a PITA.
it's actually a very tiny one. I've studied this -- the amount of
"duplicate" mail people get is NEVER even close to 1% of a person's
total e-mail traffic. And while some individuals are rather sensitve to
these duplicates, most folks DON'T CARE. I'm sorry if you're one of
them -- but it's not significant and it's not a real PITA. And forcing
ALL users into this mode because a few people get upset once in a while
is a bad reason to coerce reply-tos.
>>When I started running email lists, I munged 'em all. One day I
>>accidentally sent a private, personal reply out over one of my own damn
> Ah yes, the testimonial to personal stupidity. How touching.
Vince, don't get demeaning. you only need to send one really, really
embarassing (or damaging, dangerous, libelous or just plain stupid)
piece of e-mail to realize that ONE is enough. If you've never done it,
bless you. May you never. but if you do, maybe you'll understand a
little better and not pull this "how touching" stuff. Phttt. You're
above that kind of snide insult.
> Overall, it's a personal preference. I've held several "polls" on my
> lists (one in particular) in response to suggestions that I change the
> list to be, in ListProc parlance, REPLY-TO-SENDER instead of REPLY-TO-LIST.
> In each case, the poll results have been OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of
> REPLY-TO-LIST.
I've not only done polls, but I've done user testing and studied how
users USE the lists. They may prefer the coerced reply-to (but
frankly, I've run polls, and I can guarantee you I'll get whatever
answer I *want* simply by how I state the question), but my user
testing and my mail-flow tests both strongly indicate the reply-to
causes many more problesm for the typical user than it solves.
> I realize that I hold a minority position on this (or else the REAL
> minority is very vocal on this issue), but hey, SOMEONE has to stand up
> for the virtues of Reply-To munging, dammit.
be my guest. Just understand that you're wrong.... (grin)
--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? <http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/>)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
<http://www.plaidworks.com/> + <http://www.lists.apple.com/>
