HiSteve,
I understand the problem and I certainly wouldn't want to contribute to
delaying the new Camel or FAQ updates or whatever. :-)
I had considered replying only to the originator --- obviously I couldn't
reply ONLY to the list, since the originator is presumably not a
subscriber. There is, however, a tradeoff involved here. On one hand,
posting the message to the group adds traffic, but on the other hand, it
saves others from answering the question when they see it has already been
answered.
My own (not very strong) feeling is that it's very easy to hit a key to
delete a message compared to the effort involved in examining the question,
identifying the problem and composing a response. I alway look to see if
somebody has already responded before answering questions like this. Of
course sometimes mail delays still result in multiple responses.
The traffic certainly can be overwhelming; I'm only saved by a combination
of mailagent segregating messages and elm's sort-by-subject, giving a poor
man's approximation to a threaded newsreader.
I'll try the respond-only-to-originator approach for a while.
pete peterson
rep@genrad.com
(508)287-7478; Home: (508)256-5829 (Chelmsford, MA)
--------------------
To: Pete Peterson <rep@genrad.com>
Cc: sam.sexton@reuters.com, perl5-porters@africa.nicoh.com
Subject: Re: perl 5.001m syntax error
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 09:54:54 -0600
From: Stephen Potter <spp@psa.pencom.com>
X-Filter: mailagent [version 3.0 PL44] for rep@genrad.com
Strange sunspot activity caused Pete Peterson <rep@genrad.com> to write:
|
| Your second message reveals the "line 250" error:
|
Not to pick on Pete, but could we please reply to the originator on threads
like this. This list is getting way too much traffic as is (it very
difficult for me to keep up, and I *reallY* need to know what is going on,
so I can attempt to stay ahead of the development curve for the new Camel),
we need to find ways to remove some of it.
Thanks,
-spp
I understand the problem and I certainly wouldn't want to contribute to
delaying the new Camel or FAQ updates or whatever. :-)
I had considered replying only to the originator --- obviously I couldn't
reply ONLY to the list, since the originator is presumably not a
subscriber. There is, however, a tradeoff involved here. On one hand,
posting the message to the group adds traffic, but on the other hand, it
saves others from answering the question when they see it has already been
answered.
My own (not very strong) feeling is that it's very easy to hit a key to
delete a message compared to the effort involved in examining the question,
identifying the problem and composing a response. I alway look to see if
somebody has already responded before answering questions like this. Of
course sometimes mail delays still result in multiple responses.
The traffic certainly can be overwhelming; I'm only saved by a combination
of mailagent segregating messages and elm's sort-by-subject, giving a poor
man's approximation to a threaded newsreader.
I'll try the respond-only-to-originator approach for a while.
pete peterson
rep@genrad.com
(508)287-7478; Home: (508)256-5829 (Chelmsford, MA)
--------------------
To: Pete Peterson <rep@genrad.com>
Cc: sam.sexton@reuters.com, perl5-porters@africa.nicoh.com
Subject: Re: perl 5.001m syntax error
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 09:54:54 -0600
From: Stephen Potter <spp@psa.pencom.com>
X-Filter: mailagent [version 3.0 PL44] for rep@genrad.com
Strange sunspot activity caused Pete Peterson <rep@genrad.com> to write:
|
| Your second message reveals the "line 250" error:
|
Not to pick on Pete, but could we please reply to the originator on threads
like this. This list is getting way too much traffic as is (it very
difficult for me to keep up, and I *reallY* need to know what is going on,
so I can attempt to stay ahead of the development curve for the new Camel),
we need to find ways to remove some of it.
Thanks,
-spp