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)?
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
