At 09:59 12-12-2001 +0000, John Reid wrote:
>Ian,
>
>You cannot please all the people all the time and if a majority
>is against me, I will accept this. What I like is:
>
>> It used to be that
>> "reply" went to the original author, and "reply to all"
>> went to both the list and the author.
I support this motion.
>This is the way the J3 and WG5 lists work and I have got very
>accustomed to it. If I want to reply to the list, I use reply-to-
>all and delete the original sender's address. If I forget
>to delete the sender's address, it is no disaster - the sender
>gets two copies of a message that I meant to send to him or her.
>If I want send a private message to the sender, I use the reply
>button.
>
>The way this list works for a private message is that I have to use
>reply-to-all and delete the list address. This is counter-intuitive and
>is different from the vast majority of messages that I keep. If I make
>a mistake, it is a disaster - I send a message that I meant to be
>private to everyone.
>
>A further argument is that it should be made easy to send a private
>message. Too often, a small group (often only two) waste everyone's
>time with a private dialogue that they shout to the world.
>
>John Reid.
--
Meilleures Salutations,
Kindest Regards,
/---
Jan van Oosterwijk /"\ ASCII ribbon
Computing Centre \ / campaign against
Delft University of Technology X HTML mail
Postbus 354 / \ and postings
2600 AJ Delft
Netherlands / Pays-Bas
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://huizen.DTO.TUDelft.NL/vanOosterwijk
Phone: +31 15 27 85017
Fax: +31 15 27 83787
|