W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > June 1997

Re: VOTE: Mail list behavior

From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 20:35:49 -0400
Message-ID: <33975B65.D0495850@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
I apologize for perpetuating this, but I don't think that the question
being asked is broad enough.

Jon Bosak wrote:
>    a. It causes problems.  For details, see
> 
>       http://www.miranova.com/~steve/reply-to-harmful.html

Notice that the author of this document repeatedly cites the "group
reply" feature of "elm" which I accidentally used today. It caused one
of the series of messages that triggered Tim's tirade. This web page
author seems to think that the use of this feature is completely normal
and appropriate. If you prohibit the use of it (or make it more
difficult), then many of the the arguments in that web page are rendered
moot.

> 2. After you have considered the pros and cons, send me PRIVATE mail
>    (not to the list) under the heading of this message containing the
>    single word YES (change the behavior of the list so that the
>    default response is to the list rather than the individual) or NO
>    (keep things the way they are).  Please end the current
>    discussion on the list itself.

I urge a third choice -- a three way vote. "Let the receiver deal with
it." Although I try *on this list* to observe the list-recommended
behaviour, on other lists I merely hit group reply (as recommended in
the URL you prescribe). I for one would rather filter duplicates
(automatically ore manually) than continue struggling to change deeply
ingrained habits. This problem is so common (and controversial) that
filters strike me as the best way to handle it. I think it *is* useful
to be able to have messages that are responses to mine flagged as such
by software. The "group reply" feature allows this.

"Throwing away" the information of who the reply is really to goes
against the SGML philsophy. =) =) =) Let the client's processing
specfication deal with it.
 
 Paul Prescod
Received on Thursday, 5 June 1997 20:36:13 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:04:40 EDT