On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 04:38:50PM +0900, Dave G wrote:
:
: I find the fact that the topic has come up multiple times in itself
: indicative of what natural human expectations are.
I find that M$ Outlook does a number of things that going against
natural human expections.
: On the lists I belong to where responses go only to the list, this
: topic has never come up before. Some lists I have been on for years
: and years, and I swear this is the first time I have ever encountered
: this issue, here on this list which uses this system.
I'm on several other lists, and this particular topic always pops up on
an infrequent but regular basis.
[...]
: "My opinion is that this is a multi person discussion forum, not a
: person to person forum."
- Thomas Svenson
It would help if you provide attributes to these quotes.
: I agree very strongly with this statement, and most of the email
: that follows it. If someone posts a question, and gets a private email
: solving the problem, how does everyone else benefit?
The user who answers your question via a private email might have
reasons to answer you privately. The fact is that the user chose to
send an email to you and not the list. If you think the user was
mistaken and wanted to answer your question on the list, then you are
now questioning the choice and the intent of the user. Do you really
want to guess the wildly different expectations of the user? I've seen
several instances of people getting a private email in response to a
list question who in turn respond to the private email and post to the
*list* instead of a private email. Many people get offended when their
private email response gets posted to a public list. Others respond by
staunchly refusing private email feedback from other list members, and
vehemently assert that all private email received from list members are
considered public material. See how nasty this gets?
In summary, there are several problems. Some don't know the difference
between a private email response and a public mailing list response.
This is solved by educating the end user.
Another problem is that some mail clients fail to inform the user that a
particular reply will go to a mailing list, to a person, on to both.
This is solved with superior mail clients that lets the user know.
This leads to another problem where some list members reply to both the
mailing list and the original poster. However, the original poster may
or may not want to receive two or more copies of the exact same message.
This is solved by informing the "possibly offending" user that the reply,
while good-intentioned, is too verbose and needs to be trimmed.
The final problem is that some people have wildly different expections
of proper netiquette regarding mailing list responses. And the answer?
This is solved by reminding the end user of the list rules, that the
list may be configured to obey those rules, and that all users should be
obliged to work within those rules.
: "If you would stop using M$ Outlook and switch to a better mail
: client..."
- Eugene Lee, just some random person
: MS Outlook suffers from code bloat, but that does not mean it
: does not successfully do the task that I acquired it for, which is to
: receive, send, and filter my email, every day. And it has successfully
: handled the many mailing lists I belong to, including this one. Blaming
: the email client is just bias against brands.
Let's look at the problem again:
http://news.php.net/article.php?group=php.general&article=170904
http://news.php.net/article.php?group=php.general&article=170950
If M$ Outlook can handle the php-general mailing list, then the problem
is that the solution is not easily accessible to those who need it.
This is a documentation issue that should be addressed to those who
maintain the PHP web site.
If M$ Outlook cannot handle the php-general mailing list, then the
problem is with M$ Outlook and the solution is to use a better mail
client. This is a stubborn user issue.
All other issues, see above.
: "Just to add an authoritative answer here. Mucking up the reply-to
: header is simply wrong. I don't really care what arguments you come up
: with..."
- Rasmus Lerdorf, not some random person, like the guy who invented PHP,
is one of PHP's primary core developers, and other sweet nothings
: This seems to describe the tone of the debate. The idea of an
: authority on a matter that is incapable of considering alternate
: viewpoints seems oxymoronic to me.
You're asking to break correct standards and practices that have worked
well for lots of people for a long time. Read the issues above. Some
issues are with broken or misconfigured mail clients. Other issues are
with people who don't understand or do understand but have different
expectations of behavior. You claim that you "understand...the theory
behind the reply-to munging debate very well". And the topic of using
the Reply-To: header to work for a mailing list has been discussed here
and elsewhere in depth by wiser folks. Their solution lead to several
common practices and RFCs. Yet you reject common wisdom while calling
it "oxymoronic"?
The problem is not whether the debate is open to alternate viewpoints.
To the contrary, it's been debated to death and back. The problem is
that some folks like you don't accept the common solutions. If you
think your alternate solution is better, you are certainly free to do
so officially by writing an RFC.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
