default reply behaviour (was: curses)

Steven Lindquist slindqui at MAIL.SMU.EDU
Sun Feb 27 16:25:24 EST 2011


I was one of those who argued for the new system and I must say that I strongly prefer it.  The change came about, if we'll recall, after a series of increasingly embarrassing (and potentially damaging) emails in a very short time span.

The other benefit of the new system is that what is sent to the list is intentional and this minor inconvenience tends to decrease less relevant emails.  I prefer this, though I can understand why some might not.

My best,

Steven
 
--
Steven Lindquist, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Religious Studies 
Southern Methodist University
Homepage: http://faculty.smu.edu/slindqui
--

> 
> 
>> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:18:10 +0100
>> From: wujastyk at GMAIL.COM
>> Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] default reply behaviour (was: curses)
>> To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>> 
>> On 26 February 2011 22:18, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan <palaniappa at aol.com>wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Just now I realized that with the current default reply in the list going
>>> to the original poster, the following response I had sent a few days ago did
>>> not go to the list.
>>> 
>> 
>> Can we review this?  It's a change that was made in the default behaviour of
>> the INDOLOGY list, by popular request last year.  It annoys me a lot, but,
>> unlike Muammar al-Gaddafi, I'm perfectly willing to abide by the will of the
>> majority.
>> 
>> The problem we were trying to solve was private replies to colleagues on the
>> list that inadvertently became public.  Perhaps that is a greater danger
>> than the annoyance of posts not going to the list at all.
>> 
>> How do others feel?  Reply to sender, or reply to list at large?
>> 
>> Best,
>> Dominik
>> INDOLOGY committee member
> 		 	   		  



More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list