Re: Replies to the list

[Tim McNamara]

On Sep 1, 2010, at 6:12 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:

> If someone posts to the list
> and he is not subscribed then replying to all does exactly the right
> thing.  It sends the reply to the list regardless of the Reply-to  
> field
> and it sends a copy to the OP.

That's not exactly the right thing.

There is no need to send an extra copy to the OP because he or she  
will get a copy from the listserv; e-mails should be sent to the OP  
only if the respondent does not want his or her reply going to the  
list.  There is a reason those are called back-channel replies.  In  
such cases, it is the responsibility of the sender to make sure the  
response goes to the other person and not the list.

The way Lily-pond-user is configured, back-channel replies are the  
default- even though the stated philosophy of the list is for replies  
to go to the list and not back-channel.  This is illogical, of  
course.  As Graham has stated, it's not going to change because  
that's the way he (or whomever the official list owner is) wants it  
to be.  The list owner can of course configure the listserv any way  
he or she wants, even if it doesn't make sense.

This message will to to the list and back-channel to two people.  If  
they reply to the wrong message, then their reply will either go to  
me or to the list- the opposite of what they intended.  This may end  
up being embarrassing or may cost the list some useful information.   
My guess is that the list loses hundreds of replies a year to the way  
the reply-to header is set.  If that's a problem as far as the list  
owner is concerned, it's easily fixed so that it doesn't happen.

Anyway, that's my piece spoken.