On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:53:56 -0400, Peter T. Daniels
<grammatim@...> wrote:

> Well, it was supposed to be "off-list," but there isn't any way to reply
> to the sender without copy-pasting the address, which has to be
> remembered as a separate step!

Poorly-written software, likely, and I'm not at all questioning your
choice of software.

Good, old U of Washington Pine, more than likely still alive and well,
found mostly on Unix and Linux machines, asks you a couple of questions
before you start any replies. The questions are well-thought-out, and let
you reply to a list, individual, or both. Our local Linux/Unix users'
group list, by default, replies to the message originator, and not the
list. Somebody is extremely stubborn about keeping it that way.

> Anyway, the offer isn't open to anyone else.

Aw, gee.

I replied (intending to be off-list! Didn't check, carefully...),
declining, with thanks and appreciation.

{Checking my Sent listing...}

Well, there's a mistake that might be called, "trusting the header". I
did, expecting it to be a private reply.

One function I would truly love to see in an e-mail program is a little
pop-up asking whether the Subject line (and addresses?) are what you
really want.

This one happened, I think, because software could be significantly
better. For instance, the text background color could shift noticeably
between messages going to a list vs. those to individuals. (Whether that's
good human-interface design, is another matter; just suggesting a
possibility.) Another could be a different typeface for personal vs. list

Nicholas Bodley /*|*\ Waltham, Mass. (Not "MA")
The pack rat, sadly in need of Powdermilk Biscuits
(P.B. refers to "A Prairie Home Companion", a US
variety radio show with a folk flavor.)