On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:48:19 +0100, Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Holly Bostick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Why? Isn't the point of replying to a mailing list to send the response > > to the sender, which is the list? > > Yes, which is why the correct response for the mailing list software > is to send replies to the list and not to the author of the message > being replied to.
<SNIP> > > I'm not meaning to drag this 'argument' back into the spotlight again, I > > just really want to know why so many people think it makes "better" > > sense to have subscribers to a mailing list receive two replies if the > > respondent is responding to a post by the receiver. > > I don't think so. I think that software which sends 2 copies is > broken unless the author has set the 'Mail-Followup-To:' header to > specifically request a direct reply. > > There are two things which I find annoying about mailing lists > (neither of which are the fault of the list server/owner). The first > is when, having posted, the author of the message receives a number of > non-delivery notifications. Sorry. I really haven't been reading this thread so I'll likely step into something, but let me make one or two points that have probably already been made: 1) The administration of this list has changed. I have messages from last year here in my GMail account. If I hit reply-all on those message one copy goes to the list and one copy goes to the sender. It's not my client that's changed it's the way the messages are being sent. 2) GMail understands that if I get two identical copies of the same message, one addressed to me and one addressed to the list then it apparently only keeps one copy. I had no problems with that. I supposed other clients might not have been so kind. 3) From my POV [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] are different users. I assume that the system WANTS me to reply to them all. why should I be responsible to deciding which 4) The 'traditional', and most important I think, reason that a 'reply' doesn't go back to the list to the case where someone gets mad about something and folks start flaming. Hitting reply sends a message to the person, not the list. I think that's good taste. As this list is now set up you have to cut and paste to do that. I don't mind that. Anyway, I'll do my bit to remember that this list and only this list requires me to hit reply where as all the others I'm all require me to hit reply-to. Heat suit on, Mark -- [email protected] mailing list
