Re: [Membership] Remote Participation in the Singapore Open Meeting

[Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com>]

OK, I read it. So I see that ICANN wasn't violating the RFC822 rule that
"reply to" trumps "to." I'm just stating a preference for "munging."
Over time I've found the IFWP and ORSC way of handling "reply to" easier
than the Internic's Domain-policy. It's less convenient to do a "reply
to all" if you want to be conscientious about minimizing multiple
postings. 

So someone got a mail from me last night, I realized what happened and
decided to repost to the list. That person saw the same essential
message twice.

The bottom line is that if every list did things the same way (all mung,
or none mung) there would be fewer slips of the finger that release
private responeses to public lists, but that kind of coordination is far
too much to expect in an environment like this.

No big deal. Muddle on.

Craig Simon


Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 09:14:22PM -0500, Craig Simon wrote:
> >
> > PS. It would be nice if the icann.org list managers would fix things so
> > that when we select reply from within our software, messages go to the
> > list instead of the person who posted the message (isn't there an RFC
> > about this?)
> 
> Yes, several, and they say exactly the opposite.  See
> 
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> 
> --
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair                         "Do good, and you'll be
> kent@songbird.com                               lonesome." -- Mark Twain