BANAT-L Archives

Archiver > BANAT > 2001-02 > 0981154787


From: "Steve Herold" <>
Subject: RE: [BANAT-L] List Membership
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:59:47 -0800
In-Reply-To: <G85GY600.JQ7@mail.csv.cmich.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Susan Elaine Clarkson [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 1:57 PM
> To: Steve Herold
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [BANAT-L] List Membership
>
>
> Although I would like to see many of the responses, the automatic return to
> the list would result in just too many messages, there are already a lot of
> messages which are personal in nature and of no interest to the rest of the
> list.

An automatic reply to the list does not mean that the response must go to the
list...it just means that when you hit reply the list is the first choice. The
original list Bob Madler ran was setup with the default going to the list and I
don't think we had too many problems.

I've heard the argument for 'too many messages' but I've never seen anyone
provide any kind of a guess as to how many more messages we would see on the
list. I'm also on a couple of busy computer related lists and probably receive
150 messages a day. It is amazing how easy it is to distinguish between the
messages you are interested in reading vs. those that just don't get read. The
"too many messages" argument may be interest to our European friends where
Internet time is more expensive and I'd like hear their opinion.

And of course I agree with you that messages of a personal nature should not go
to the list.

> However, in the case of responding to questions, using the Grunwald question
> as an example - I would like to see those responses so that I know the
> person has received an answer and I don't have to take the time to look up
> the information for them. There is no need for several of us to answer a
> question that has already been answered.
>
> When I answer a question of this nature, I try to remember to put the Banat
> list in the "Cc" spot, as I have done with this one, so that everyone knows
> the question has been anwered.

Sue, if everyone followed your example we wouldn't be having this discussion!
:-))

Steve Herold

This thread: