[Elecraft] How to reply to specific post on the reflector?

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 6/21/2013 11:00 AM, AG0N-3055 wrote:
 > <eoa>This is dead wrong and impolite.  The originator asked THE GROUP,
 > and the reply need to go to the group.  There is no reason to assume
 > that the originator is the only person who wants to hear the answer.

You are dead wrong and obviously have no appreciation for e-mail
distribution lists other than in the socialized world of Yahoo,
Google and those who emulate them.

In the *real world* relies always go to the sender of the e-mail and
it is impolite to copy the entire world unless everyone has a direct
need to know the information.  Copying 5,000 e-mail addresses to say
"thanks for your opinion, Bub" is absurd.

Quality e-mail software generally offers three replay options: reply
(reply to the sender) is the default but Reply to all is generally
available which replies to everyone appearing in the header of the
e-mail, sender, addressee, and all those listed as CC:, some of the
better e-mail clients (e.g. Thunderbird) even recognize most mail
list (and groupware) senders and provide a "Reply to List" option
which directs the reply back to the list server for distribution.

Rewriting the "reply to:" address to point to the list defeats all
of the options built into the e-mail client and forces an unwanted
"social entitlement" on list participants.  It is the responsibility
(and right) of the person responding to a post to determine if his
replies go to everyone on the list, the individual who wrote the
post being replied to, or some other combination of addressees.  It
is not your right as a *third party* participant in the list to
demand access to the thoughts of everyone else reading the list.

> That's part of the group environment and public sharing of
> information. Do you read the paper to see one item only? No, you read
> the paper to see what is new and what is interesting.

When you read the newspaper or watch MSNBC do you expect to see all of
the reporter's notes and all the communication between the reporter
and his/her editor?   Of course not, you see what the reporter/writer
wants to *allow* you to see and nothing else unless someone has made
a mistake and released a story early or some "leaker" has released
documents that they were not entitled (authorized) to release.

You don't have a say in the matter - either get over it or red the
National Enquirer instead of the Scottsbluff Star-Herald.

Frankly, I'm tired of the periodic complaints about the way this list
is configured.  It is configured correctly as benefits a reasonable,
professionally operated e-mail service and should remain that way
rather than emulate the worst systems like Google and Yahoo's mail
lists.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 6/21/2013 11:00 AM, AG0N-3055 wrote:

> <eoa>This is dead wrong and impolite.  The originator asked THE GROUP,
> and the reply need to go to the group.  There is no reason to assume
> that the originator is the only person who wants to hear the answer.
> Otherwise, the list would operate in such a way that when you subscribe,
> you receive a listing of those who are also subscribed.  You pick a call
> who you think might know the answer to your question and send them a
> personal note and he replies back to you.  Pretty stupid isn't it.  Even
> if you think it is a dumb question that you have to ask, I guarantee you
> that there is someone like you who also doesn't know the answer and
> didn't post the question but is anxiously waiting for someone to answer
> it so he will know too.
>
> This list owner happens to want it this way (apparently), so we have to
> put up with it.
>
>>   Too many impolitic e-mails intended for a single individual have received bulk distribution via reflectors set up so that "Reply" sends it to the group.
>
> That's part of the group environment and public sharing of information.
> Do you read the paper to see one item only?  No, you read the paper to
> see what is new and what is interesting.  Ever pick up the paper and see
> something that surprised you and you were glad you saw it?  That's what
> groups/lists are for.  You cheat everyone else out of the answer and
> also future searchers for information are deprived of having the answers
> to their questions by not allowing the answers to be public.
>
> </eoa>
>
> Gary
>