(You'll get this one twice, to illustrate the point)
Jim wrote:
> On occasion, I have posted a question or statement.
> Invariably, someone
> has responded to that question/statement, and send their reply
> to the list
> AND to me. My initial response has always been, "Now I got it
> twice. Why
> not just send it to the list?"
>
> I'm really curious -- why do folks do that? Are there certain
> folks who are
> more inclined to do that? Are there certain messages that
> prompt folks to
> do that?
>
> Roasting in Arkansas
The reason is because Bill Southerly refuses to admit he was wrong and
listen to his users.
That's blunt.
It's also true.
At one time, when you sent a message to the list anyone who replied
simply selected the "reply" function and their response went directly to
the list. That's the way nearly ALL email lists work--and the way they
were _intended_ to function.
Bill decided to try an "experiment." He set the default reply function to
go to the individual who wrote the message instead. Now in order to send a
reply to the list instead of the individual, there are two choices:
1. You can select "reply" then delete the address of the original poster
and put the TIPS address in its place--a clumsy and error-prone method.
2. You can select "reply all" and the message will be addressed to both
the original sender AND the list. At which point, Bill feels, you should
simply trim the original sender's name from the address and send it.
In other words, it is now the responsibility of the user to do the work
of the listserv program. Many users simply don't bother, either through
ignorance (or forgetfullness) or because they feel that if Bill insists on
it being set this way, he can bear the burden of the complaints.
Many of us have tried asking Bill--here or in private--when this
"experiment" will end, and why he refuses to reset the reply function.
Unfortunately, our words continue to fall on very deaf ears and the
function remains this way--as it probably will continue to do, since he
appears totally unwilling to admit that he made a mistake.
If you sense frustration, you're right. A list owner has an obligation to
his/her users that Bill stopped trying to meet some time ago from every
indication. And I'm not denigrating the amount of work involved--I manage
several lists myself and know what's involved. In the case of the reply
function it would take sending precisely ONE command from his account to
the listserv to change the status. He obviously feels it's less work for
all of use to continue to edit our replies--or for his regular posters to
continue to receive multiple copies of replies to them (AND notices that
mail bounced at bad list addresses, etc.) then to send that one message.
You can expect to continue to receive multiple copies of replies to your
questions. The easiest solution--and one several of us have discovered
works better--is simply not to post very often, to skip posting
informational messages altogether, and to ask questions other places
instead.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College, Jackson, MI
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds
will be the love you leave behind when you're gone."
Fred Small, J.D., "Everything Possible"
