Re: List reply-to setting.
From: J. Paul Robinson (jpr@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu)
Date: Tue Feb 10 1998 - 12:01:03 EST
•    Next message: Leary, James: "RE: Labeling cells with beads"
•    Previous message: Steve G. Hilliard: "Re: List reply-to setting."
•    In reply to: Mark A. Corio: "List reply-to setting."
•    Next in thread: Echeagaray, Patricia L.: "RE: List reply-to
setting."
•    Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ attachment ]
________________________________________
"Mark A. Corio" suggests the need for a listserve approach:
Here is my reply:
The lsit is run from my lab and Steve kelley send me your message.
The way our list is run is by intention. It is designed for maximum
value and least annoyance. We believe that a message that is to be
sent to the list myst be intentioned to the list. Otherwise
individuals communicate directly. We will not be changing this
method as it is the one favored overwhelmingly by the group. There
are virtually no trash emails on this group. There is a very good
reason for that. If anyone sends trash mail, they are rapidl;y
deleted from the list and their access is barred. This makes a very
strong incentive to keep a high quality of discussion. My experience
with listserves is the rubbish is overwhelming! We have considered
many times the advantages of a listserve , and the disadvantages far
outweigh them. Since we are one of the older scientific discussion
groups out there, our track-record speaks for itself. We do encourage
people to tabulate results of their questions. They invariably do
this and we thank you.

While, I appreciate this might generate some email, let's not fill
the box. We are NOT going to change it anyway!!!
regards
Paul Robinson