Wel, Paul, I have been on dozens of e-lists for 20 years, and ALL of them except this one are reply-to-the-list, not to he individual. Your mileage may differ, but that is “normal” to me for public lists. I’d prefer to specify when I want to reply privately, and assume that a reply to a list posting is for the list, not the individual.
But ”reply” and “reply all” do not apply when there is only one reply-to address provided by the senders.
If it is not of general interest, it should not be on the list, excepting some types of messages… like how can one contact so-and-so, whatever.
Oh well, there is no way to please everyone. I’ll be more circumspect.
On Jun 9, 2016, at 9:50 AM, Paul Jackson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> (And your reply to is set to go to you, not the list. Kind of annoying.)
> I'm not sure why one should set the "Reply to" as that then would require us all, to have to reply to all of the lists we are subscribed too, when some of the information we are replying is personal to the respondent and would not be of any interest...and shouldn't be part of putting everyone on the list on notice of a personal note to someone.
> Most useful email clients have a button for "Reply" and "Reply all" and is easy to achieve without having to set the client for "All" all the time.
> If this isn't the case, adding ARSCLIST to the reply address doesn't seem that consequential.
> I've seen a number of persons suggest we are doing this wrongly, but it's not how most handle their emails. I'm signed up for many lists as a mentor, and some things are just not appropriate for everyone to read.
> Paul T. Jackson
> Trescott Research
> Steilacoom, WA
> [log in to unmask]
> support writing: Plateauareawriters.org
> support live music: Gatewayconcertband.org