On 03/10/2011 10:32 AM, objectwerks inc wrote:
On Mar 9, 2011, at 9:47 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 9, 2011, at 7:56 PM, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
Why is the mailing list even including other members? Don't most
mailing lists properly configured strip out the duplication from
headers so you're not sending multiple replies?
Yes they do. This is the only one of a dozen I'm subscribed to that
behaves this way. I likewise have argued the mailing list is
improperly configured for the manner in which this list is used.
But alas there is only one list member who is particularly bent out
of shape about it.
You still do not get it Chris. This has nothing to do with the
listserve and how it is configured.
Actually, it kinda' is. Something in the headers, when I hit reply, only
goes to the sender, not the list. When I hit reply all, it goes to the
list and anyone else in the headers.
This is the only list I've been on that I recall this happening.
That would imply that something about this list's particular
configuration is causing this to happen.
This has to do with emails
straight between two parties, that you insist on sending twice to
the same person because you are too lazy to use email appropriately
and trim out addresses so that the same person is not in the list
twice, which happens due to the way Apple Mail handles REPLY ALL when
there is a REPLY-TO header set (which might be considered a bug on
Apple Mail part, debatable of course, but since you want to use Apple
Mail you need to work around its limitations).
Hmm...what I described above was NOT from Apple Mail. Perhaps you should
also complain to the programmers for Thunderbird, unless they're too
niche to be thought of as worth testing this against.
There is a reason the list is configured the way it is, btw. You may
not agree with it (and I tend to agree with you). However, the list
was set up to reply to the post sender, and not to the list, by
default, so that you would have to THINK about what you were posting
and whether an answer was appropriate for the poster only or for the
whole list to see.
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of being on the list in the first place?
It openly encourages the very thing being complained about here.
To be honest, it doesn't really force me to think about whether the post
is appropriate or not. A) it's very simple to just hit reply-all anyway
and have it go to the list...as easy, in fact, as hitting reply. For the
sender, problem solved. B) if I do the reply-all/trim, it can become
automatic to trim extra names out. I don't think about the content of my
post anymore, although I'm slightly irritated at deleting names
individually.
If you wanted the WHOLE LIST to see your answer
to a list post, they purposefully made it so that you had to type the
list name in to the TO or CC field manually.
Then why would I bother hitting reply? The whole workflow is a pile of
crud. 99% of the time I'm replying *to the list*. Why must I go out of
my way to reply to the list *manually* each time? Oh, so I have to THINK
about it first...hmm...I think it sucks.
And to piss them off about the craptarded way it's default configured, I
think it's simpler to just hit reply-all and send it out until someone
fixes it. Or everyone could just ignore it and move on.
If the community is generally screwing it up or finds it irritating, the
behavior of the list should probably be modified. Isn't that a fairly
simple rule of software usability?
When Bart posted his question, I replied to him directly, and not on
the list, as it was not germane to the list. Of course, you just hit
REPLY ALL and blasted your answer to the list even when not
appropriate, plus directly to Bart. Think about it.
I'm not trying to insult you, as you seem rather reasonable...but
really, it seems the default behavior of the list should probably be
changed. Numerous other lists use the other behavior that doesn't
require having to re-craft the message five different ways each time
before sending and they seem to work fine, and it would solve the
problem of blasting multiple messages to people.
Users do what's simplest. Add obstacles, they'll work around it, usually
in a way that means least thought or friction. To the sender, having you
put up with multiple messages to the recipient is less thought and less
effort than trimming the message down. Ergo, while some, or many, take
time to trim...it's a losing battle to expect the user to conform to
your own way of working when their way "works" well enough as well.
I wish there was a way to talk to whoever is the moderator responsible
for the list and ask if they'd consider changing this. In the end it
doesn't matter. If the list becomes annoying, I don't reply anymore
anyway. If it becomes really annoying I create a rule that deletes the
messages from my inbox. If others agree with my perspective the list
dies and something else will take its place.
_______________________________________________
MacOSX-admin mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
