Administrivia: Reply-to list or author?

[Paul Leyland]

My vote remains as it always was: leave well alone.  Like Bruce, I've very
occasionally been embarassed and I've more often failed to make a point that
ought to have been public.  The embarassment is fleeting; the contributions
are (or should be) long-lived.

Anyway, the present policy gives people an incentive to think before they
type, rather than afterwards.  8-)

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	T Bruce Tober [SMTP:octobersdad@reporters.net]
> Sent:	Wednesday, March 25, 1998 4:33 AM
> To:	ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk
> Subject:	Re: Administrivia: Re: Swedish Certification Authority
> 
> In message <199803250022.AAA04680@server.eternity.org>, Adam Back
> <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes
> >
> >Paul argued for reply-to on the basis that it stimulates discussion,
> 
> And so it does. The errant reply to the list is not that often seen,
> though in the eyes of the senders (and I've been one on another list) it
> can be one too many or at least seem that way because of the
> embarrassment it can cause. But the other way (replay to author) is also
> a pia in that one is (and I speak for myself) constantly forgetting that
> th4e response is going only to the author and great thoughts and
> contributions to the on-going discussion are lost. I would rather the
> infrequent embarassment of a private letter sent to the list than a
> public contribution not made.
> 
> It's really easy to hit delete on messages you don't want to bother with
> and by just reading the subj or author line you can usually tell which
> those are at a glance. And yes, I know, one should never just a message
> by its cover.
...