| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: Reply to List? Sender?
Since the concept of what a summary is seems to be a unknown to some, I
thought I would summarize the replied to the voting for the fun if it. My
comments are in the square brackets [ ... ]
I would suggest that there be several voting categories. I have changed from a numbered list to a list of type CHAR so that the former and the new votes don't get confused.
Option "A": The default reply will send mail to the sender, the group reply (or reply to all) does just what it says. It replies to the "group" or everyone on the list. This still allows the receiver to sort on the "Sender".
Option "B": The default reply will send mail to the list, but the sender's address is in the "Cc:" field so even for those who loose the header will be able to cut from the "Cc:" field and paste into the "To:" field. In this case the group reply (or reply to all) would be meaningless because the sender is already going to get a copy.
Option "C": This is the "Status Quo". All replies go to the list. It is only with some work that the user can reply to the sender, and some users can't reply to the sender at all.
I am assuming that "almquist paul" <almqpf_at_CVTC-CIS.CHIPPEWA.TEC.WI.US> is still interesed in collecting votes...
Bambi wrote:
> ...someone sends some juicy tidbit that really raises my eyebrows and
> gives me something useful.
Another 2 cents:
My vote is for the status quo. I too get a lot of tidbits and enjoy knowing
their sources. I also fear that too much might get lost in summaries that
don't happen or are done without enough attention to detail. We humans do
have a tendency to make m!%t_at_cks after all.
[ NOTE: If the person making the summary knows enough about his mail ] [ program they have the ability to create *exact* copies of messages. ] [ This is what I have done here. Nothing is lost! And those that ] [ don't know how to do this should break out the manual... ] [ And Susan, your name *does* appear! You shoud be so proud :-) ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Tue, 14 Mar 1995 14:55:21 +0000
> From Peter Robin - probin_at_ozemail.com.au
> ...as a newbie who is drowning in 46 messages tonight I suppose I am in
> two minds. I love the depth but I drown in the deluge.
>
> I think as someone said, we need to be able to identify someone so where
> the answer is not relevent to others we can just send to them, but
> otherwise send to the list and learn to swin in the deluge.
>
> will be interested to read what others think
I find myself in a similar position, having received 10 messages within an hour of joining this list. The normal practice on other lists I have joined is to reply to the sender, who then posts a summary back to the list.
> I'd like to see the From header changed to the poster. If I want to
> respond to the list I'll just change the address when I reply. Perhaps a
> short tag could be added to the beginnng of the subject like [ORA] so
> it's easy to see from where the message came. Can the listserv program do
> this? I know some can.
[ NOTE: This can be done by having the "Sender:" address be ORACLE and ] [ have the "Reply-To:" address be the sender's address. This way those ] [ with VMS can search for ORA as the sender. The fact that people have ] [ to search through their mail messages suggests to me that this has ] [ more messages than they are able to read, making summaries important. ]
This can be done by
1. sending am email to th list server (LISTSERV_at_CCVM.sunysb.edu) NOT the
oracle-l list.
2. in the body type the following. This will use Internet-style headers
SET IETFhdr
> I use Elm which shows the poster's name on the index page but it picks
> up the list's address when doing a reply.
So am I (using ELM). When you do a reply it goes to the original poster. But if you use "g" it goes to everyone that was on the list.
[ NOTE: I need to do the "SET IETFhdr" header. I use elm and I have ] [ to open the headers in order to find out who send it. ]
1a 1b 1a 1b 1a 1b
2Yes
> From Peter Robin - probin_at_ozemail.com.au
As a newbie who is drowning in 46 messages tonight I suppose I am in two minds. I love the depth but I drown in the deluge.
I think as someone said, we need to be able to identify someone so where the answer is not relevent to others we can just send to them, but otherwise send to the list and learn to swin in the deluge.
will be interested to read what others think
Paul --
Thanks for being the volunteer pollster... other Chicagoans have already voiced the call of the wild here which is "vote early, vote often", which of course saves me from having to say it. I would have responded to you personally, but there's a point here that I'd like to make as soon as my rambling stops.
Occasionally, someone asks something which is not pertinent to my situation here, and I would therefore not necessarily ask that person to send me any mail forwarded...*but* someone sends some juicy tidbit that really raises my eyebrows and gives me something useful. Maybe it happens 10% of the time, maybe more or less for other people depending on their situation; but, the bandwidth we burn is worth it for one point like x$ksppi!
So, the *long* and the short of it, is my vote is for the status quo. Unless the sender thinks that the response is of no interest to anyone but the questioner, post it publicly. So, for all the dead folks I know... 1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a!
Bambi.
From: NAME: Bruce Pihlamae
FUNC: Information Services
TEL: (06) 289-7056 <PIHLAMAE BRUCE_at_A1@CBR>
To: MX%"ORACLE-L_at_CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU"@CNB09W_at_MRGATE@CBR
CC: MX%"bellwsb_at_CIG.MOT.COM"@cnb09w_at_mrgate@CBR
> Sender: "ORACLE database mailing list." <ORACLE-L@CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU>
> From: Bambi Bellows <bellwsb_at_CIG.MOT.COM>
> Subject: Re: Reply to List? Sender?
> X-To: "ORACLE database mailing list." <ORACLE-L_at_CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU>
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU>
> In-Reply-To: almquist paul <almqpf_at_CVTC-CIS.CHIPPEWA.TEC.WI.US> "Re:
Reply
to
> List? Sender?" (Mar 13, 2:55pm)
....stuff deleted ...
>
> Occasionally, someone asks something which is not pertinent to my
> situation here, and I would therefore not necessarily ask that
> person to send me any mail forwarded...*but* someone sends some
> juicy tidbit that really raises my eyebrows and gives me something
> useful. Maybe it happens 10% of the time, maybe more or less for
> other people depending on their situation; but, the bandwidth we
> burn is worth it for one point like x$ksppi!
EXACTLY! Add functionality but don't change the way it currently works.
Add a CC: of the originator and let the reader decide who to reply to.
Why wasn't that option on the ballot ??
Has the ballot been rigged already ? 8^}
> So, the *long* and the short of it, is my vote is for the status
> quo. Unless the sender thinks that the response is of no interest
> to anyone but the questioner, post it publicly. So, for all the
> dead folks I know... 1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1a!
[ NOTE: I don't think that filling the "Reply-To:" field with the ] [ sender's address and the "Cc:" field with the List address could ] [ be considered loosing functionality. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Tue, 14 Mar 1995 08:21:00 +1100
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@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?
[ NOTE: Not always, sometimes I get the following: ] [ -------------------------------------------------------------------- ] [ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 15:40:32 -0600 ] [ Reply-To: "ORACLE database mailing list." <ORACLE-L_at_CCVM.sunysb.edu> ] [ Sender: "ORACLE database mailing list." <ORACLE-L_at_CCVM.sunysb.edu> ] [ Subject: Re: Reply to List? Sender? ] [ X-To: "ORACLE database mailing list." <ORACLE-L_at_CCVM.SUNYS...] [ To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_CCVM.sunysb.edu> ] [ -------------------------------------------------------------------- ] [ I have to open the header to find out who sent it. At least if it ] [ were in the "Cc:" field I could cut and paste between them. The ] [ compete header follows: ] [ -------------------------------------------------------------------- ] [ From owner-oracle-l_at_CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU Mon Mar 13 16:41:09 1995 ] [ Received: from CCVM.sunysb.edu by haiti.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.6.7/1.35) ] [ id QAA17041; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 16:41:02 -0500 ] [ Message-Id: <199503132141.QAA17041_at_haiti.gsfc.nasa.gov> ] [ Received: from CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU by CCVM.sunysb.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) ] [ with BSMTP id 5591; Mon, 13 Mar 95 16:41:00 EST ] [ Received: from CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV_at_SBCCVM) by ] [ CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0947; Mon, 13 Mar] [ 1995 16:40:32 -0500 ] [ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 15:40:32 -0600 ] [ Reply-To: "ORACLE database mailing list." <ORACLE-L_at_CCVM.sunysb.edu> ] [ Sender: "ORACLE database mailing list." <ORACLE-L_at_CCVM.sunysb.edu> ] [ From: Bambi Bellows <bellwsb_at_CIG.MOT.COM> ] [ Subject: Re: Reply to List? Sender? ] [ X-To: "ORACLE database mailing list." <ORACLE-L_at_CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU>] [ To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_CCVM.sunysb.edu> ] [ In-Reply-To: almquist paul <almqpf_at_CVTC-CIS.CHIPPEWA.TEC.WI.US> ] [ "Re: Reply to ] [ List? Sender?" (Mar 13, 2:55pm) ]> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Reply to List? Sender?
> X-To: ORACLE-L_at_CCVM.sunysb.edu
> X-cc: Steve Calvert <calvert_at_HG.ULETH.CA>
.... 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 warrant 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 paid 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.
[ NOTE: Nothing is lost, nothing is abolished! ]
>> 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.
[ NOTE: As the poster you are responsible to post the summary to the ] [ list. Only if you failed to do this would you get mail bombed. ] [ You would suddenly get the same number of messages we currently get!] [ Not exactly a fate worse than death... ]
> 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?
[ NOTE: Lets not get pedantic here Bruce. If this was a Usenet group I ] [ could just add you to the kill file, and that would solve that :-) ]
Most of my replies go to the list as well as the originator simply because most people DO NOT summarize. This is a training exercise for everyone to get into the habit of doing.
[ NOTE: Well, those folks that don't summarize would get mail bombed... ]
I have no difficult in reading the first posting and then ignoring all the other RE: and REPLY: postings that appear.
[ NOTE: We are all very proud of you! :-) ]
By all means add functionality ... BUT don't remove any.
[ NOTE: Like I said, there isn't *any* functionality lost of the ] [ "Reply-To:" field contains the sender's address and the "Cc:" field ] [ contains the List address. If you reply to all or do a group reply ] [ you will do exactly what the current list does. And for those that ] [ live behind a mail gateway that removes the header, they will be able ] [ choose who the message gets sent to. There are clear cases when the ] [ sender should *not* mail it to the list but has to now. Nothing lost.]
Does the mail server need to be re-written to add this functionality?
[ NOPE ] Bruce... pihlab_at_cbr.hhcs.gov.au
And such a nice singing voice you have too. 8^}
>
> Bambi.
Bruce... pihlab_at_cbr.hhcs.gov.au
I vote for replying to the list. At least half of the useful information I've gotten off this list has been from conversations between individuals. And I'm _sure_ that I don't have time to be summarizing discussions offline for other's use (I'd probably filter out something that would have been useful anyway).
[ NOTE: Nothing has to be filtered out. I haven't even though I have ]
[ been sorely tempted to! :-) ]
Also - None of this applies to me anyway, as I receive the list in DIGEST form. One big email from ORACLE-L every day. So how could the "from:" field reflect the individual contributors in such a case?!
[ NOTE: The "From" field could stay "ORACLE" so that those that sort ] [ mail by sender could sort it, or have elm filter it. It is the ] [ "Reply-To:" address that would contain the sender's address and the ] [ "Cc:" field that would contain the ORACLE-L address. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Tue, 14 Mar 1995 12:35:32 MDT
My vote is status quo.
ludwigi_at_tcplink.nrel.gov
 |
 |