Re: Reply to List? Sender?

From: Bruce Pihlamae <bruce.pihlamae_at_A1.CBR.HHCS.GOV.AU>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 08:21:00 +1100
Message-Id: <9503140009.AA11673@alice.jcc.com>

From: NAME: Bruce Pihlamae

        FUNC: Information Services
        TEL: (06) 289-7056 <PIHLAMAE BRUCE_at_A1@CBR>
To:     MX%"ORACLE-L_at_CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU"@CNB09W_at_MRGATE@CBR
CC:     MX%"hoepfner_at_HAITI.GSFC.NASA.GOV"@cnb09w_at_mrgate@cbr

Here's a full copy of your last posting

> Return-Path: <owner-oracle-l_at_CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU>
> Received: by cnb09w.hhcs.gov.au (MX V4.1 VAX) with UUCP; Tue, 14 Mar 1995
> 06:31:28 +1100
> Received: from CCVM.sunysb.edu (ccvm.sunysb.edu [129.49.2.183]) by
> sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA06412 for
> <bruce.pihlamae_at_A1.CBR.HHCS.GOV.AU>; Tue, 14 Mar 1995 03:19:03
+1000
> Message-ID: <199503131719.DAA06412_at_sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au>
> Received: from CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU by CCVM.sunysb.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with
BSMTP
> id 4828; Mon, 13 Mar 95 12:05:50 EST
> Received: from CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV_at_SBCCVM) by
CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU
> (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8675; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 12:04:51
-0500
> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 13:01:42 -0400
> Reply-To: "ORACLE database mailing list." <ORACLE-L_at_CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU>
> Sender: "ORACLE database mailing list." <ORACLE-L@CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU>
> From: Patrick Hoepfner <hoepfner_at_HAITI.GSFC.NASA.GOV>

        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I already get the address of the SENDER and the FROM.

Don't you?

> Subject: Re: Reply to List? Sender?
> X-To: ORACLE-L_at_CCVM.sunysb.edu
> X-cc: Steve Calvert <calvert_at_HG.ULETH.CA>
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU>
> In-Reply-To: <199503131622.LAA16327_at_haiti.gsfc.nasa.gov> from "Steve
Calvert
> Ext. 2071" at Mar 13, 95 09:25:55 am

>


> > On Mon, 13 Mar 1995 09:08:23 EST,

> > Chris Fahrner <cfahrner_at_OCTRF.ON.CA> wrote (in part):
> >

.... actually, not a full list as I've cut most of the message ...

> I am new to this list and just a lurker but I believe that the traffic is
high
> enough to warrent limiting the mail to those that *really* intended to send
> mail to the list. *Everyone* knows the address of the list (they should
have
> kept the "Welcome" message). But not everyone know the address of the
sender.
> At the very least, the address of the sender should be in the "Cc:" field.

I have no problem creating a reply which has oracle-l as the destination and then cut/pasting the real sender in as a CC or replacing the oracle-l address completely.

The CC idea would be useful though.

> As someone that has a job to do (I am not payed to read mail that is
*really*
> directed at a specific user [e.g.: Thanks Bob, your suggestion worked.] ).
> The default response should be the correct response, that is, sending the
> message to the sender who should be responsible for collection, trying and
> summarizing the responses...

I have found a lot of useful tips and info in just the sort of communication that you want to abolish.

> > Since my mail program doesn't strip anything from the message, I don't
really
> > need the user to include their address ... therefore my opinion is
probably
> > suspect. IMHO (and it really *should* be humble), having the mail come
"from"
> > ORACLE-L makes it much easier to read. I can perform a "dir/from=ORAC"
to
> > select out the Oracle messages. With 50-80 messages per day, I need this
to
> > separate the message threads from the various lists.

>

> It is possible to have mail from "ORACLE-L" but have a Reply-To: field with
> the sender's address. And then the "Cc:" field with the distribution list.
> That way you can reply to the sender, do a group reply to sender and list.
> Current users that don't have the ability to filter scads of useless mail
and
> sort it on a useful manner are out in the cold...

>

> Summaries are *always* more useful than dozens of identical or nearly
> identical messages. The questioner *should* be responsible to take all the
> responses and summarize them. The person posing the question is also in
the
> unique position of being able to try the suggestions and let the others
know
> what did and what did not work...

You then get 50 list messages asking for copies of the summary... Its not a perfect world.

> I believe that the 80/20% (list vs. sender) response rate to the list is
the
> very reason that there is 30 to 50 messages a day... The signal to noise
> ratio of this list IMHumbleO is low...

I would like more signal as well but it gets down to what is signal and what is noise. I run a VMS/VAX site and most of the UNIX stuff is noise. How should I filter that out?

Most of my replies go to the list as well as the originator simply because most people DO NOT summarise. This is a training exercise for everyone to get into the habit of doing.

I have no difficult in reading the first posting and then ignoring all the other RE: and REPLY: postings that appear.

By all means add functionality ... BUT don't remove any.

Does the mail server need to be re-written to add this functionality?

>
> -- Pat ---------------------------------------->
hoepfner_at_haiti.gsfc.nasa.gov

Bruce... pihlab_at_cbr.hhcs.gov.au Received on Mon Mar 13 1995 - 19:09:36 CST