Re: Reply-To

[Al Thompson <alt @ aen . org>]

On Thu, 5 Dec 1996 BWhitloc@micro.honeywell.com wrote:

> 2.  "You're an ignorant user who shouldn't even be writing with sharp 
> instruments like a pencil, much less using e-mail.  Good luck learning, 
> because *I'M* not about to give you a clue."  Yes, I'll gladly admit it was 
> a real DUH moment when I realized that a simple way to do this without 
> setting a Reply-To header is (everyone listen carefully):
> 
>      Use "Reply To All" to send public replies to the list.  Messages from 
> the list will show as coming From: the submitter and To: the list, so "Reply 
> To All" will send e-mail back to the list as well as the original sender. 
>  If you want to be considerate, also remove the name of the original sender 
> from the To: list so they don't get two copies.
> 
> If instead of railing about how lame it is to use Reply-To, this tip was 
> added to the FAQ and the Reply-To Considered Harmful page, people may be 
> spared a lot of embarrasment and abuse.  I'm not exactly an e-mail novice, 
> but for some reason this simple connection didn't click until some time 
> later.  I'd hate to think that disqualifies me from productive society.
  
This certainly works, but it still doesn't address the issue.
 
The issue is:
How can we have a mailing list configuration that can be fun, easy to use 
(even with different mail clients), and doesn't cause more problems than 
it solves?
 
Granted, there are certainly people out there who will whip out a reply 
to a message using vi (or EDLIN on DOS), and can also write a mail 
delivery agent to send it off.  This doesn't describe the vast majority 
of users today.
 
There are also many lists which devote themselves to topics other than 
computers themselves, and whose users may be computer novices who will be 
lost if they have to ask how to send a reply to the list, and may not 
even know what mail program they are using.
 
There are quit a few people out there who just will not use something if
it's not easy to use (for them).  What's easy for a Unix guru on a list
about C+ programming may not be easy for My Mom in a list about cooking
(for example). 

MLM managers/owners are providing a service to their users.  It should be 
the intention of those managers/owners to provide the best, easiest to 
use (for the users) service as possible.  This may not necessarily equate 
to one that is the easiest to manage to the list manager/owners, nor does 
it necessarily mean it will have the 'cleanest' code.  Even performance 
figures mean little to list members, within reason.   

To the majority of list members, they will base their decision on whether 
to remain to quit on such factors as: can I easily send mail to the list; 
are the list commands logical and easy to use; can I easily tell if 
incoming mail is from the list?
 
Of secondary concern to list members is: how long is it from when I send 
a message until every list member has received it?
 
The last concern is: how easy is it for the list owner to maintain the list?