THIS IS ALMOST INCOMPREHENSIBLE - RATHER THAN BEING THE MODEL OF CLARITY
THAT A LATER MESSAGE APPEARS (POSSIBLY FROM JULAIN WELLS OR SOMEONE
E-MAILING UNDER HIS MONIKER) TO IMPLY

Ray Thomas wrote:
>
> There are a couple of points that haven't been made in the discussion.
> First, I expect that other prolific posters also occasionally get direct
> replies from other members.   Where these replies include information that
> seems of general interest and do not appear to be in any way personal in
> nature, I have assumed, under the 'Reply-to-Sender' setting, that they were
> mistakenly sent to me rather than to the list.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOUR FIRST SENTENCE SAID
>
> I usually post such messages to the list.   But I have then been accused (by
> a third party) of violating privacy.   If I can detect any reason for
> privacy I would like to think that I respect that reason.
ON THE WHOLE IT'S THE SENDER WHO SHOULD DETERMINE THE PRIVACY NOT THE
RECIPIENT ..

But if no such
> reason is detectable I can't see much point in off-list discussions.    I
> see the Radstats list as for public discussion - maybe like Julian and
> Colin.    One of the reasons for changing to the 'Reply-to-List' setting is
> to reinforce that public discussion idea.    The 'Reply-to-List' setting
> reduces the risk to me, or any other member of the list, of getting messages
> that are not clearly intended as a contribution to a public discussion.
HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY _REDUCE_ THE RISK?
>
> The other point is about messages sent to list-owners telling them what they
> ought to be doing.   I was asked, for example, to admonish Coomaren
> Venatasawmy for breach of privacy because his summary posting of 14th Dec
> included the names of the authors of who had responded to his original
> message.    It seems to me that Coomaren's summary was very informative and
> that it started a good debate.    To make judgements about possible breach
> of privacy in such a message is a responsibility I would gladly share with
> other list members!    In other words, if members want to take up such
> matters of netiquette it would be reasonable that they should express their
> views to the list rather than to me.
>
> So there has been some relevant debate in the background that influenced me
> to the change to the 'Reply-to-List' setting.   But that debate has been off
> the list not on the list.   I would have preferred for this discussion to
> have been conducted on the list.
BUT YOU APPEAR TO HAVE COLUDED IN IT BEING OFF THE LIST?
What is the point of private discussion
> when there exists this superb facility for public discussion?    What is the
> point of being mean and stingy in expressing a point of view?
>
> I don't think that JISCmail has a facility for voting, but it does have a
> facility for adding a standard footer to all messages.   So that very useful
> suggestion from Ted Snowdon can be implemented anyway.
>
> I'll try this footer facility to explain the current setting.   But please
> regard this as a cultural as well as a technical trial.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
If I get the
> technical bit right I'll be to happy to rewrite the footer to explain a move
> back to the 'Reply-to-Sender' setting.     I agree with MJRay and Ted
> Snowdon that this is the more logical setting, and that setting seems to be
> supported by the most vocal participants in the discussion over the past
> week.
>
> Ray Thomas, Social Sciences, Open University
> Tel: 01908 679081 Fax 01908 550401
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> 35 Passmore, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY
> **********************************************
>
> Please note that Radstats is currently set to 'reply-to-list', not reply-to-sender..
> That means if you press the 'reply' button on your mailer your message will go to
> all members of the list.   If you want to reply to the author of a message on
> the list you will have to delete the list address and substitute the address of
> the author.
>
> The setting is a matter of some controversy and is under review.  The setting may
> well be changed to 'reply-to-sender' that is more logical, but may be less
> convivial.
>
> Ray Thomas, list caretaker.