Alexander Verbraeck <A.Verbraeck@duticai.twi.tudelft.nl> wrote on 23
Oct 1994:
]1. Make sure the Reply-to: address for individual messages is the
] SENDER of the message, and not the entire list ...
Reply-to-list vs Reply-to-sender is a painful trade-off, I believe,
Sir. We have had both alternatives in FISH-ECOLOGY and great
ammounts of research information would go lost because of the
Reply-to-Sender flag.
I believe that b.c. work may do a great deal in reducing noisy-use.
Furthermore, I observed in FISH-ECOLOGY that the abusive type of
messages were used by subscribers who are wired in Novell/LAN kind
of internal networks - and not others. Perhaps, to make clear that
the _same_ standards *apply* to every one whether one is the "baker
man" or the "Honoris Causa" will do.
Regards,
APS (FISH-ECOLOGY)
Follow-Ups:
|
|
