On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 11:39:14 -0700
JC Dill <inet-list@vo.cnchost.com> wrote:
> On 09:48 AM 7/6/02, David W. Tamkin wrote:
>> 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.
I suspect its a subculture. It was new to me about 3 years ago when I
ran across it on the SVLUG list via a Rick Moen rant. I don't know if I
simply didn't notice it before that, but I see it quite often now. It
may also be that my list demographics have moved to better match the
population that uses OFF-LIST flags, or just that a significant
percentage of those who send me off-list mail are also recipients of
Rick Moen rants. Dunno.
That all said adding an OFF-LIST tag seems both reasonable and valuable.
It makes something explicit and polite that helps the recipient handle
the mail appropriately.
> 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.
I've gotten lazy. I use group-reply everywhere, even for private mail
(which works as group-reply is equivalent to standard reply for personal
mail). The only time I use standard reply is when I'm very conciously
deciding to limit distribution.
> 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.
Fair dinkum and very well within your rights in controlling and limiting
the distribution of messages you author. Do remember however that this
is a private consensus as there is a reasonable probability that some of
the addresses you are removing would prefer to receive a second
"courtesy copy". After all, if they didn't they would have set Reply-To
themselves or otherwise trimmed the distribution list...
<Insert rant here about MUAs which don't allow easy ad-hoc Reply-To
setting>
--
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:
|
|
