regarding the reply address on the list....

From: Bill Dawson <whdawson_at_mlynk.com>
Date: Thu Feb 3 15:55:13 2000

     4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO

        This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any
        mailbox(es) to which responses are to be sent. Three typical
        uses for this feature can be distinguished. In the first
        case, the author(s) may not have regular machine-based mail-
        boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate machine
        address. In the second case, an author may wish additional
        persons to be made aware of, or responsible for, replies. A
>>> somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message
>>> teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution
>>> services: include the address of that service in the "Reply-
>>> To" field of all messages submitted to the teleconference;
>>> then participants can "reply" to conference submissions to
>>> guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of their
>>> own.

  (emphasis mine). And that, I think ends this discussion.



O.K. Valid argument. I now agree with those who wish to change back to the
*OLD* way. Most replies are directed back to the group anyway, not to
individuals.

It's not a case of hardware, software, or means. It's more one of
functionality and purpose. The purpose should be to facilitate discussion
with the group and to disseminate information to the group. A replies to an
individuals directly is not the main purpose of CLASSICCMP as I see it.

Bill

FWIW, if you wish to reply to me directly:

whdawson_at_mlynk.com

Easy enough to replace the "TO address" with the above, isn't it. AAMOF, an
individual's contact information should be one of the last items included in
a post to the group. Isn't that why it was requested to be there before?
Received on Thu Feb 03 2000 - 15:55:13 GMT