Message-Id: <v03020903af6ff8d4b229@[193.63.183.34]>
In-Reply-To: <YX4Z6DANAkSzQA$J@turnpike.com>
References: <v03007802af6fe712b83c@[199.81.221.28]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 14:34:46 +0100
To: Paul Overell <paulo@turnpike.com>, drums@cs.utk.edu
From: John Martin <martin@terena.nl>
Subject: Re: Replying to a mailing list

At 1:54 pm +0100 8/4/97, Paul Overell wrote:
>>When you get a message from a mailing list, should you then send your reply
>>only to the list, or also to the author (even though he is a member of the
>>list). I suggest that we specify this, and say that replies, which are sent
>>to the whole list, SHOULD preferably also be sent to the "From:" mailboxes.
>>

I think it is dangerous to mandate this sort of behaviour at all: it is up
to the user to decide which they reply to.

>Personally I don't like receiving two copies of replies to my mailing
>lists messages since:

...though better getting 2 replies than none at all - right? (In the case
where the poster is *not* on the mailing list to which they are posting, a
very common occurance.)

>3) if I receive my personal copy first, without realizing that it has
>also so been sent to the list, I may inadvertently reply to the
>individual rather than to the list.

The copies may be different but unless your MTA (or the mailing list MTA)
screws around, *both* should indicate multiple recipients in the To field.
In fact, if you're on the same MTA as the exploder, and it is smart enough,
you will only get one copy anyway, no matter how many mailing lists it was
Cc'd to.

John