Fwd: Re: [INDOLOGY] default reply behaviour (was: curses)

[Elliot M. Stern]

I should also have said earlier that I have no objection to returning to default reply to the list. 


Elliot M. Stern
552 South 48th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19143-2029
United States of America
telephone: 215-747-6204
mobile: 267-240-8418
emstern at verizon.net



On 27 Feb  2011, at 2:52 PM, Rosane Rocher wrote:

> Having lived with both systems, I favor default reply to the list.  It seems
> more sensible to me to put the burden of creating an address on individuals who
> occasionally wish to send private messages than on all participants to list
> discussions.
> 
> Rosane Rocher
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at GMAIL.COM> -----
>    Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:18:10 +0100
>    From: Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at GMAIL.COM>
> Reply-To: Dominik Wujastyk <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
> 
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----