On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 18:24 -0800, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> 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. > Dont quite get you there, but its pretty simple, we are on a list, having an open discussion, if you reply to me, or I, you, then it should go by the list, on this list very simple, its configured correctly by having reply-to set, to the list, problem does not exist, if you reply, or reply-all, at least when I do in evolution, it only sends to lists. some clients and free mail providers, it sends to list, and to the author on reply-all evolution does allow reply to list if I hit control-l for those brain dead lists that do not set reply-to headers, if in that case you hit reply-all to get it to list, yes, else reply, direct to sender. AFAIC, list posts are like usenet, if you partake in a public discussion then your reply should go public, you may give an answer to a real sticky problem, no point in only one person getting the answer, it should be on-list so others are aware, and also it can be archived so others with same problem in future can find answer. If you think your reply is not fit for list, or, you may want information you are not willing to make public (like for example your domain name, or a hostname) then it is acceptable to reply directly with that information, but any follows afterwards, should be back onlist. No one would be having this discussion if list owners configured their lists correctly (as Thomas has done here with users@) > > 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. This is more the clients fault (as above), and also agree, user laziness > 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? > if it does reply to list and poster, then I do disagree with it. > > > 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? > I was talking about cross-posting to multiple lists being bad idea in general discussions for the very reason you point out.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
