I find myself agreeing. While emails that reply to all when the intentioned recipient is a just a specific friend are tragic, the default reply to behavior for most emails on this list(or at least mine) is to the entire list. That's what a mailing list is for?
-Andrew On Mar 20, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Maxim Kammerer <m...@dee.su> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Michael Allan <m...@zelea.com> wrote: >> But it now appears that safety is a concern (as Matt points out), >> which wasn't originally understood. Since it's a question of safety >> vs. convenience, then maybe it's better to revert immediately to the >> default setting (the safer one). > > How about no? Any decent mailing list uses reply-to-list as a default. > The original survey stated: > > Reply to entire list or individual sender: > - Advantage of replying to individual sender includes preventing > personal replies from being inadvertently sent to the entire list. > > Advantages of replying to entire list include: > - Preventing people who forward emails from the list from > unnecessarily exposing subscribers' email addresses > - Preventing list server from having to filter email to subscribers > who are in To: or Cc: (if anything goes wrong, they get an email > twice) > - Reducing both the strain on the server and the risk of triggering spam > filters > > So no new information has been brought in this thread. > > -- > Maxim Kammerer > Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
