From ragnarok@pobox.com Thu Mar 14 16:04:28 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 15 Mar 2002 00:04:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 46849 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 00:04:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 00:04:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 00:04:28 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AA8C2A6B009E; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:04:28 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] lojban.org transfer, reprise. Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:04:29 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> > On the other hand, an alternative would almost surely include a sane >> > reply policy for mailing list responses. >> >> Out of curiosity, what do you consider 'a sane reply policy'? >Where default replies go to the list, not to the poster. There are times for replying to the list, and times for replying to the poster. Consider the two scenarios: A. No munging. Reply to list: click reply-all, remove one name from the to box on your e-mail system. Reply to poster: click reply B. Munging. Reply to list: click reply. Reply to poster: click reply, select the list address, type in the poster's address and hope you get it right. Assuming that you do any replying to the poster, scenario A is better. That is not a reasonable assumption, for some people, but for many of us it is.