From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Thu Aug 19 06:48:46 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 19 Aug 1993 15:05:48 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 19 Aug 1993 12:32:32 -0400 Message-Id: <199308191632.AA00187@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4331; Thu, 19 Aug 93 12:30:30 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4021; Thu, 19 Aug 93 12:32:54 EDT Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 10:48:46 -0400 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Monthly posting for August, 1993 X-To: Lojban List To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: <9308181540.AA01472@relay1.UU.NET> from "Matthew Faupel" at Aug 18, 93 04:38:38 pm Status: O X-Status: > [C]ould whoever it is adjust > the way it works so that the Reply-To field of the messages it sends is set > to be the list address itself rather than the sender of the original message > please? We tried that when Lojban List was first listserv-ified, and found that it led to greater confusion. It is better, I think, that a public posting be sent privately than that a private posting be made public, and it's easier to change the "To:" line to a fixed address than to have to guess the correct address of the poster if you want to reply privately. But I'm open to further input on the point. If enough people would prefer the "Reply-To: lojban@cuvmb..." style, it can be changed. Comments? -- John Cowan cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban.