[sf-perl] [list etiquette]

[David Alban]

despite cries of "oh no not this issue again" i have to say that i,
too, think reply-to-sender as the default for the list is much more
kinder than reply-to-list.

it seems that reply to list favors the "corporation"[1] and not the
individual, perhaps with the goal of increasing discussion on the
list.  i would favor saving someone who intended to send a private
email from being embarrassed by inadvertently sending to the whole
list, over someone who meant to reply to the list inadvertently
responding only to the sender, every time.

in the former case, damage of a personal nature may occur.  there is
nothing the sender can do at that point.  the damage is done.

in the latter case, the list gets one fewer email message, and when
the person realizes that it didn't reach the list, they can always
resend.  problem solved!  completely.

people potentially being personally damaged--very bad.  people not
getting a response that was intended to go to the list--hardly an
issue at all.  and very easily correctable.

yes, i'm the one who wrote that folks should pay more attention to the
to: and cc: fields when they send.  i still think that.  but i think
reply-to-sender is far more forgiving and far more humane than
reply-to-list as the default setting.

[1] or in this case, this group as a whole

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Joe Brenner <doom at kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
> I'm inclined to agree with Randal on this one.  The current setting is
> designed to build up list traffic at the expense of occasional
> embarrassment to the list members.  It would seem that this is Not Nice.

-- 
Live in a world of your own, but always welcome visitors.