On 16.01.2014 17:27, Noel Butler wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 16:40 -0800, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 16.01.2014 16:02, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> The vast majority of MUA software on the planet has only Reply and
> Reply All. Those users are using Reply All, so as to keep it a group
> discussion.
Where did I say we needed another reply-x_function?
> "Reply All" has a standard, decades old behavior, and mailing list
> robots are designed around the assumption that it is used.
Where did I say it wasn't?
> you seem to be pretty crash hot at putting words into peoples mouths
> when they did say no such thing, keep on track with my comments and
> not the comments of others when replying to me, else dont waste your
> time, or mine, trying to force yor options down others throat when it
> is not the content I brought to the discussion.
Okay, whoa! Sorry.
I certainly don't want to put words into people's mouths; I almost
think you're confusing me with out belligerent friend.
Rewinding, then, and returning then to your original comment:
NB> [I]t annoys me greatly that people find the need to reply directly
NB> as well as a list, I mean we *are* all on the same list, so we will
*all*
NB> yes, including intended recipient, get the post, do people think
that
NB> sending it directly will get read sooner?
It should perhaps have asked: what is it that you suspect these people
who
have this "need" are doing, exactly? I mean, step by step.
My intent above was not to insinuate that you said something you didn't
say but only to hypothesize how people end up doing that.
(Are you talking about people actually posting something twice
to different destinations? Or replying to you directly and CC'ing
the list?)
You said that in response to
RH> > the opposite is true such users *do not* want both copies
NB> Another rare occasion where I agree with Harald,
But these two copies are simply the consequence of someone
doing Reply All (which Mr. Harald thinks is a bad idea, at least in
connection with mailing lists) and the list neglecting
to filter out the duplication. So that is where I got the idea that
you don't agree with Reply All for mailing list discussions,
in expressing the agreement above! See?
> The assumption that "we are in the same list" only holds when all
> the recipients of the message are subscribers of the list (because it
> rejects posts
and if they are not, they become irrelevant (another pet hate, carry
out *general discussions* across multiple lists)
I don't quite see what you mean there. It's possible to have an on-topic
discussion that isn't cross-posted, which involves decently behaving
non-subscribers, right?
(To spare you future bother, I hereby acknowledge that you never
said it *wasn't* possible and I'm not putting words in your mouth.)
_______________________________________________
Roundcube Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
