Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!westmark!dave
From: dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Reply, not Followup
Message-ID: <734@westmark.UUCP>
Date: 24 Dec 88 05:18:25 GMT
References: <10709@s.ms.uky.edu> <312@antares.UUCP>
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA
Lines: 31

In article <312@antares.UUCP>, pnelson@antares.UUCP (Phil Nelson) writes:
> In article <10709@s.ms.uky.edu> simon@ms.uky.edu (Simon Gales) writes:
> 
> >Replying to a post is just as easy as following up via the net, it 
> >really doesn't take that much more effort.  Who are the lazy ones, 
> >the ones who ask for email replies, or those that would rather post?
> 
>  Speaking of laziness, I use the "R" key, and have noticed that roughly 50%
> of the mail I send with it bounces. Is that normal? (Please 'r'espond via
> mail (if it doesn't bounce :-) and I will summarize).


The reason for posting a followup when a reply would probably do as
well is that reply mail often bounces.

The usual reason why reply mail bounces is that a number of sites on
the net will forward news but will refuse to forward mail (are you
listening, AT&T?).  Your reply mail tries to back-track the route
taken by the article you're replying to, but if it went through one
of these sites that won't forward mail, then your reply either
bounces or is silently trashed.

The best solution, I suppose, is to use a smart mailer (or direct
all of your reply-mail through a smart host) that re-routes it
around the links that won't handle it.

-- 
Dave Levenson
Westmark, Inc.		The Man in the Mooney
Warren, NJ USA
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave