On 29 Aug 1999, Steve Youngs wrote:
> Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 27 Aug 1999, Steve Youngs wrote:
> >
> > > Why is it that practically everyone on this list insists on sending
> > > copies of their replies to both the list and all the previous posters
> > > in the thread?
> > >
> > Why not?
>
> Because it is bloody annoying that's why.
>
I'm sorry, but I don't find it annoying at all. If you don't like it, it
is easy enough to block the duplicate messages without ever downloading
any more than the headers.
> > > When you consider that 99.9% of the people posting to this list are
> >
> > Errrm.... I don't think that's true.
>
> Well, they should be.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean they are.
> And if they are not they should say so in the
> message.
Why should they? This list is deliberately open to anyone, whether they
are on the list or not. So I see no reason to assume that somebody who is
not on the list should say so.
> Then we could encourage them to subscribe because then they
> would learn other things as well.
>
Sure.
> > If they don't want both of them, then they can nuke one without it ever
> > getting read (with procmail, or whatever).
>
> Agreed. How many newbies do you know that are comfortable with
> setting up procmail recipes
>
Very few. But, if that many newbies found it to be a problem, they would
ask. How often does the question come up here?
> > There are a few good reasons for doing it:
> > 1) The author may well want a quick response - and a response via the list
> > may be slow, either because the list is congested, or because the
> > author only reads the list when (s)he gets time.
>
> If the author wants a quick response the author should say so in the
> message. Something like... "this is really urgent, could you please
> send any replies directly to my email address, thanks"
>
Why should they? If you regard the list as a support service, then what
you are saying is that people should have to ask for a quick response in
order to get one. I feel that they are better served by getting a fast
response even if they didn't ask for it.
> > 2) If the post contains any information and/or requests, it is sensible to
> > send it to the list so that anyone else to whom it is relevant sees it.
>
> I'm advocating that people _only_ reply to the list that way we all
> can benefit from the answers
>
There are cases where there is nothing to be gained by replying to the
list. This thread is getting very close to one of those cases.
You have to consider it on a case by case basis - most replies clearly
need to go to the list, some to the author, some to both.
> > I always reply to the author, and Cc to the list if I can see any benefit,
> > to me or anyone else, of doing so. I see no good reason to change this
> > habit.
>
> There's nothing wrong with your habit, except that it is backwards.
> Turn it around... Always reply to the list and Cc the author if you or
> they will benefit from it.
>
But... there are very very few cases where I don't believe the author
would benifit from receiving the reply directly. This mail is going only
to the list, because that's what you asked me to do. Otherwise it would
have gone to you direct, probably Cc'd to the list (since it contains
potentially useful opinions). Why send it direct to you? Because that
way you can reply sooner, and we can get this argument over quicker and
get back to what we are meant to be doing (whatever that may be).
--
Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"I'd love to go out with you, but it's my parakeet's bowling night."
