default reply behaviour (was: curses)

[Lubin, Tim]

Hitting "reply-all" to reply to all (i.e., to the list) does not seem a terrible inconvenience to me, and if it saves some people the embarrassment (in some cases, grave embarrassment and harm; in some cases trivial but repeated embarrassment), it might be deemed worthwhile.   It seems to me that such unintended broadcasts used to be very frequent.

If we do switch back, I suggest that others might do as I do – instruct one's email program to funnel all messages from INDOLOGY into a separate folder.  Most programs have the facility of doing that I think.  It then becomes less likely that one would forget that the message was not a personal one.

P.S., like Eliot, I replied to Patrick deliberately off-list, and for the same reason.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Dominik Wujastyk
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 2:18 PM
To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] default reply behaviour (was: curses)


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

!SIG:4d6aa391185711731119178!