On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 07:09:18 -0700
JC Dill <inet-list@vo.cnchost.com> wrote:
> On 10:59 PM 7/4/02, J C Lawrence wrote:
> 2) While you complain about the effects using MS mail clients has on
> your mailing lists, I can equally complain about what I firmly believe
> is the antiquated and useless practice of setting up a DISCUSSION LIST
> with Reply-To to the author, and not the list.
I initially set up my main lists with Reply-To: munging turned on as at
the time I thought it the "Right Thing To Do". I now regret that
decision and have wished to reverse it -- and so asked my lists members
for their thoughts. More than 30% of my posting population came back
strongly against lists without Reply-To munging. Several explicitly
stated that they consider lists without Reply-To munging to be
effectively unusable. Perhaps more interestingly, none of my posters
came back in support of removing Reply-To munging (tho several
non-posters did).
Their reasoning covered the gamut and should be familiar to all of us.
I didn't argue. Past a certain point perception of problems is more
significant than fact of problem.
> It leads to posts that are sent to dozens of individuals. Just as
> lazy MS mail client users start typing their reply where their client
> drops the cursor (at the top, resulting in top posting), lazy list
> users such as most people on this list select "reply to all" and then
> don't bother adjusting the ever increasing list of names that the
> reply goes to.
This can be and is considered a strong advantage of not having reply-to
munging as the CC: header tends to accumulate the list of participants,
resulting in much faster and more easily controllable turn-around among
those interested in the sub-thread (especially for moderated lists).
Essentially it allows for such threads to fork off a semi-private
sub-list (in the form of the CC: header) which runs in parallel with the
main list.
Some love this feature. Some hate it. As happens this is probably the
main thing I like about non-Reply-To munging lists.
> Both types of users justify their actions by saying that since the
> software sets-up their reply this way, it must be OK. Well, I think
> it's pretty damn lazy to send a reply to the list, and to every other
> address that happens to be in the list headers, just because that's
> how the software most easily lets you reply back to the discussion
> list.
This gets into how much you adapt to and accept bad software. For those
that are annoyed by CC address accumulation the normal solution is for
them to set Reply-To on their own posts to the list, thus auto-trimming
and short circuiting the distribution list for all descendants of that
message. The broken software problem is that most of the MUas in common
use don't support easily setting Reply-To on a per list/folder basis let
alone for individual messages.
> And I really detest the duplicate messages this causes ME to receive.
> IMHO, this is worse than top-posting, with top-posting at least I only
> get one message.
Note that there are others who not only like the duplicates, but
actively demand them.
Again, this gets into questions of software capability and adaption to
their arbitrary limits. You dislike the dupes. Then again you chose to
use a MUA that doesn't support automatic removal of duplicates from the
inbound message stream as well one that doesn't allow for easy ad-hoc
setting of Reply-To on the messages you send. What's the correct
target? Where is the actual fault? You and your choice of MUA, the
list configuration, or the behaviour of the other posters to the list?
How much do you adapt to the popularity of broken software and ignorant
or negligent users?
Problem is you have little choice. You can ivory tower and thus lose
the vast majority of your current and future audience, or you can try
some middle compromise. There are many many possible middle
compromises. None are ideal.
For my main lists I chose to leave reply-to munging turned on. My main
lists are also hand moderated, thus largely eliminating the "I didn't
mean to send that to the list problem". But that same hand moderation
and its resulting message propagation delays causes its own problems
both in broken expectations and effective forcing of forked threads and
discussions to occur entirely off the list and in private. As with all
such compromises, you get to choose your devils. I don't like the
devils I chose, but we've worked out a way to live without excessive
grumbling.
> 3) Finally, it really irks me when a thread drifts completely off the
> prior topic and yet no one bothers to change the subject line. It
> irks me even more when the discussion list in question is supposedly
> full of people who should know better.
Hehn. I'm afraid I gave up on Subject headers on Usenet even before
September. Quite sad really for me to be so jaded and worn down so
early.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
