On 01:12 PM 7/6/02, J C Lawrence wrote:
>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>
It has been *my* experience that most emails have the Reply-To set by
something [1] that is other than the author of the email. Thus, most
people haven't a clue what Reply-To is, how to change it, or why they would
want to change it. IMHO, assuming that someone wants to receive duplicate
copies of an email merely because selecting "reply to all" addresses the
reply in a way that would cause that, is a bad bet.
Maybe I've been using usenet too long, but I expect people who post or
email to a discussion group to always expect replies to go back to the
discussion group (if said replies are of general interest to the group),
and if they want a courtesy copy (or a private response) to explicitly
*ask* for it in the body of their message.
jc
[1] the mailing list, the desktop admin who setup their computer, "the
software", etc.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
