On 09:48 AM 7/6/02, David W. Tamkin wrote: >| I sort all my mailing list emails into mailing list specific folders based >| on "any header contains the list name". > >So let me see ... > >If you post to a list that we are both on and I have a private reply to send >to you ... > >and either (a) I follow the common practice of adding "[off-list from ><listname>]" to the subject ...
Common? I've *never* had email identified in that manner. >or (b) the list tags its subjects, and I don't delete the tags from my >copies, so the subject of my private message to you is "Re: [listname] >whatever"; Actually, my filter doesn't filter on the subject when it filters on "any header". >then you'll sort it into your folder for the list and assume it was a public >post or a copy thereof ... No, I'll assume it's related to the list. When I want to read email related to the list, I'll read that folder. >and not realizing it's a private message you might choose to post a public >reply on the list ... When I read the email, I can see the headers of who it is (and isn't) sent to. When I reply, I select "reply". If the sender has put the list address as the reply-to, the reply message is going to be addressed back to the sender, if not the reply message is going to be sent to the author. >and since you are against using reply-to-all because it builds up a chain of >unnecessary private copies in addition to the posted one, you'll use your >regular reply command ... > >and when the return address comes up pointing to me instead of the list >you'll mutter something about reply-to-sender lists that don't clobber >Reply-To: and change it to point to the list ... Nope. I NEVER just "change it to point to the list". When dealing with a list that leaves reply-to set to the author, (such as this list) and desiring to reply to the whole list (and not just the author, as in this particular case), I select "reply to all" to get the list address in the reply message, and then delete all extraneous addresses (often including duplicates) as needed. A bothersome extra step, but I feel that netiquette is important. >and you'll quote my privately mailed text to -- and share your comments on it >with -- the whole list membership. Nice try. I've never done that, not once in 8 years of email and thousands and thousands of messages. >That sounds like a very risky practice. Personally, I don't do "(a)" -- (I >put "[off-list from listname]" at the top of the body) but I've seen a lot of >people do it. Also, I hate subject tags and strip them out on the way to my >folders, so I'm not at risk of "(b)" either, but many people are. Even so, >sometimes the name of the list really has a purpose in appearing in the >subject of a private message. "Subject: Are you as sick of listname as I >am?" for example. > >At least exclude the subject line when you search the headers for appearances >of the list's name. I do. jc p.s. What does "beed" mean (in your modified subject line)?
