iplayer audio to lpcm

[Jonathan Larmour]

On 08/11/14 23:05, Peter S Kirk wrote:
> Yes, David runs the list. However, he should respect the preferences of 
> list members who as you say "almost no-one else on the list agrees with him 
> in principle".

I very much agree in principle, and in practice.

David's reasoning is sound, and also reflects the way mailing lists have run
for many years. People here are saying they don't know other lists that run
like this - whereas I am the opposite, and virtually all the lists I am on
behave correctly, just like this list.

List managers who have abused the Reply-To field have just been catering for a
dumbed down audience, and it now seems that people more widely have started to
become conditioned to it too, but that doesn't make it correct. Although this
is hardly a recent problem. The classic discourse about this:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html is now at least 14 years old.
I'll also throw in
https://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html in passing, which
is also worth a read.

> Regarding David's statement that if he is not cc'd with a question/problem 
> he won't finds that rude and won't reply.

Many people, like David or myself, are on many mailing lists which are often
high volume. A directly addressed email goes to my Inbox, and other list
traffic is filtered to a folder to look at at a lower priority. David is
making the point is that it's not up to him to search around for your replies.
If you want a reply FROM him, make your reply TO him, not (only) the list.

Anyway, as others have said if your mail client doesn't know how to deal with
mailing lists in this day and age, perhaps you need to consider whether it is
up to the job. Thunderbird allows me to directly do Reply, Reply List or Reply
All. It's not difficult. The OP's one does seem to have a somewhat odd way to
do it too, but it's there. If yours doesn't and you'd rather not change, okay,
but it's your choice.

> Again he is in a minority (of 1?).

The dissatisfied are always more vocal.

Jifl