On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
This is a perfect example of why the 'reply to' thing was originally broken,
recently fixed, and today reset back to the broken state.
One person posts an OT message that is quite easily resolved by doing a
simple google search.
But since the 'reply to' is broken again, we get 7 different replies telling
the whole list, rather than the one person, how to find out what the acronym
means.
Andrea, I'm sorry if you felt flogged by folks wanting the old modus
operandi in place; you were right in the first place to have fixed the
'reply to'.
From my point of view the list behaviour you're talking about is broken.
Why? Because this is a _list_, where people discuss different topics. It's
not for private conversation; that would easily be solved by having a
webpage with members mail address so that you could email them in private.
Yes, the "correct" (acc. to my view) behaviour does mean some redundancy
but that is usually for "trivial" questions, like the one above. People
use this list for getting answers to their gentoo-related questions.
Mailing people in private means that other people on the list with similar
problems might miss the solution. Also all mail is archived and before one
sends an email about a problem one should check the archives first; if one
sends the answer to people in private the solution will not be stored in
the archives... Just my x.xx <insert currency here>.
Best regards
Peter K
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
