Subject:
|
Re: Slight change in gateway addressing method
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 23 Jan 1999 03:58:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1244 times
|
| |
|
|
Bram Lambrecht <braml@juno.com> writes:
> > But you can also reply to someone -and- to the group if you have
> > separate Reply and Reply All options in your e-mail software.
> > This is much closer to how real mailing lists work.
>
> Does that mean you the original sender would receive the same reply
> twice?
If the sender chooses not to delete the recipient's name before sending the
message, and if the recipient receives the group to which the message is posted
via e-mail rather than via news, then yes, they'll receive the same reply
twice.
If that sort of thing actually becomes a real problem, it should be possible to
store the To and Cc headers in the news article and prevent re-sending double
copies when the outgoing news-by-mail messages are distributed.
> Personally, I think the l-cad list method is best - you see the sender's
> names (which is great!) but the Reply-To is set to the newsgroup.
It used to work that way. I thought that was better/safer at first, and I saw
L-CAD doing it, so I thought it must make sense. The lego-robotics mailing
list is set up the opposite of the way: Reply sends back to the sender and
Reply All sends to the sender and to the group.
But when it was set up the L-CAD way, not only did that generate a lot of
heated complaints from people about Reply-To being "broken" and "hard to use"
but it also caused many people to accidentally send private replies to groups.
The lego-robotics way also makes more intuitive sense, with Reply implying a
private reply just like it does in a real newsgroup. Nothing's perfect, but
it's really the better of the two alternatives.
> That
> way I don't accidently mail the message to one person instead of the
> whole group.
The alternative is to accidentaly mail the message to the whole group when you
meant only to mail it to one person -- that has much worse maximum negative
consequences!
> I think that if you keep it the way you have just set it
> up, threads will dissapear all of a sudden and people will wonder why
> their messages don't show up.
That might be, but I think that depends on how many people subscribe to things
using SMTP versus NNTP, and whether people using SMTP pay attention to their To
lines or whether they ignore them. Anyone who does a lot of e-mailing will be
most comfortable with Reply going -only- to the sender and requiring Reply All
to reply to everyone -- that's standard e-mail behavior. If they accidentally
send a group-message to a single person and they wonder why their messages
aren't showing up, then they need a refresher on how to use their e-mail app.
> This is especially true because you have
> to check the original message to see which newsgroup to send it to if you
> don't have a Reply to all option.
Whoa -- like, do you mean there are actually e-mail programs out there which
don't have both options? [1] I sure haven't ever seen any -- and it's a
frightening thought!
Pine and cc:Mail are interesting, BTW... In Pine, you type 'ryn' or 'ryy' for
Reply and Reply All, respectively. And in DOS cc:Mail, you type 'yn' or 'yy'
for Reply and Reply All, respectively. (The reason for the yes/no reversal on
the last character is due to "Reply to all recipients?" vs. "Do you wish to
retain all the original addresses?" :-)
--Todd
[1] Larry?
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Slight change in gateway addressing method
|
| (...) ^^^...^^^ ^^^...^^^ (...) ^^^...^^^ ^^^...^^^ (...) I just realized something -- on the first read, I totally missed your personal take on this. Maybe the behavior should simply be a personal preference -- i.e., do you want messages coming to (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Slight change in gateway addressing method
|
| (...) At work I don't have a reply all option. Of course the system is a main frame with in house e-mail software. I think it passes mail off to another system, which acts as a gateway to a Netcom connection. In any case, I don't have the reply all (...) (26 years ago, 24-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Slight change in gateway addressing method
|
| (...) Does that mean you the original sender would receive the same reply twice? Personally, I think the l-cad list method is best - you see the sender's names (which is great!) but the Reply-To is set to the newsgroup. That way I don't accidently (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
