On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:20:53 -0500, Thomas Yan <tyan at twcny.rr.com> wrote: >Well, it won't necessarily convince anyone, but let's have a little poll: > >1. Have you accidentally sent a private reply instead of posting to > the list? Sure - I think you (TY) were one . . . > >1'. Have you accidentally posted to the list instead of sending a > private reply? Never (unlike other lists ;<) ) > >2. Have you received an accidental private reply that was meant to go > to the list? Don't think so. > >3. When you get a message that was sent to you instead of the list, do > you feel obliged to query the sender to ask him or her if it was > meant to private instead of to the list? Haven't yet, but perhaps I should have. > >4. Has the Reply-To behavior of this list caused you confusion when > posting to other mailing lists, perhaps even causing you to > accidentally send a private e-mail instead of posting or vice > versa? No - I have kept the confusion nicely bottled to this list and the associated Read list. > >5. How do you feel about the Reply-To behavior of this list? > + dislike it I have a fairly easy system worked out now - my mailer allows a nickname for the list address, so it isn't much work. The suggested reply-to-all strategy is more awkward and normally less desirable for all the preceding posters. The problem is, I'm an old dog, and learning new tricks is . . . problematical. I'd be less annoyed if I could comprehend a reason for why this list is different from all other lists. I think there was some discussion early on, but I didn't gather much beyond this is the way the people who set it up want it. Richard