FREEMAN-L Archives

Archiver > FREEMAN > 1999-05 > 0926432028


From: Ken Hollingsworth <>
Subject: Re: [FREEMAN-L] Waterman lines
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 07:13:48 -0700


Hi Lisa,
No appologies necessary, it happens to all of us at one time or the
other.
There are probably more/better reasons to have the "reply-to" set
to List than to sender. Generally, the purpose of a genealogically-based
list is to provide the easy exchange and collaboration of many, who share
the same interest in a surname or geographical area. If the reply-to was
set to "sender", all information requested would not benefit the rest of
the list members, unless the person sending the information thought to
include the list address.
Along with the several lists I oversee, I'm also subscribed to a
few others that have the reply-to set to "sender", and the norm is, that
when information is requested, there is usually a few others requesting
"send it to me also" type messages. This, IMO, is unnecessary list
traffic that is easily stopped with setting the reply-to to "List".
Regardless of whether the messages we receive, and wish to reply
to, is from a list or a private email, we should get in the habit of
checking the To: line.
Thanks to the person who sent the "Life in the 1500s" letter
of yesterday. Is this from a compilation in book or on a website? I
really enjoyed it.

Ken Hollingsworth

At 09:10 AM 5/11/99 EDT, wrote:
>My apologies to the List this should have gone to (Bert
>R. Webster).
>
>A suggestion to the list, is there any way to change who the reply to is?
>Most of the time I receive these posts, they come with the Freeman-L address
>in the reply to line. It might help to avoid all those other unecessary
>posts like mine.
>
>:-)
>
>Lisa
>
>
>

This thread: