Return-Path: 
 <geronimo-dev-return-184-apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 56251 invoked by uid 500); 8 Aug 2003 07:40:42 -0000
Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:geronimo-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 56231 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2003 07:40:42 -0000
Received: from adicia.telenet-ops.be (195.130.132.56)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Aug 2003 07:40:42 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by adicia.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E0D137ED5
	for <geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org>;
 Fri,  8 Aug 2003 09:40:54 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from outerthought.org (D5E0039A.kabel.telenet.be [213.224.3.154])
	by adicia.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 751FF37ED3
	for <geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org>;
 Fri,  8 Aug 2003 09:40:53 +0200 (MEST)
Message-ID: <3F335405.3080702@outerthought.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:40:53 +0200
From: Steven Noels <stevenn@outerthought.org>
Organization: Outerthought
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] change Reply-To to go to geronimo-dev
References: <6D248950-C925-11D7-BFFA-000A95A01192@adeptra.com>
 <20030807232142.GN18904@lyra.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030807232142.GN18904@lyra.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

On 8/08/2003 1:21 Greg Stein wrote:

> I'm not a fan of reply-to munging. I've seen it do bad things, and I've seen
> people accidentally send sensitive, personal info to a list when they meant
> to send it to an individual. The "failure mode" of a lack of Reply-To is
> much better ("oops, didn't go to the list") than the failure mode of having
> it ("oops, I just sent that personal slam to the whole world").

Personaly, I believe it is better that people are always thinking and 
acting in 'list mode', and have to go through some burden to go into 
'private mode'. We shouldn't convenience the list for Jekylls & Hydes. I 
don't find myself often needing to compose a private reply to a list 
message, and if so, most usually, I end up wondering why I didn't send 
it to the list after all, or why I send the message after all, it being 
a flame, or an alpha-male show-off thing, or doubletalk which doesn't 
help anyone. Typically, such messages also fall under the two-email-pattern.

For newcomers: here's the two-mail-pattern, as coined by Stefano:

if you are ready to flame, type away, but don't press the send button 
immediately. Leave the issue aside for a couple of hours, open up a 
fresh message composition window, and compose a second reply (don't edit 
the first one, you have to start from a blank window). Send that one. It 
really helps!

Cheers,

</Steven>
-- 
Steven Noels                            http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at            http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org                stevenn at apache.org