In <20040917125724(_dot_)50a30d09(_dot_)moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
Because, except in the case where the list-maintainer automatically
inserts Reply-To (a usage often deprecated, though I find it appropriate
in many lists that I use), Reply-to-All is the only thing that guarantees
that the reply gets sent to the list. Simple Reply will usually just
respond to the author.
Therefore, users who want a quiet life and cannot be botherd to
cut-and-paste (which is most of us) just hit Reply-to-All, a practice
which means duplicate copies to the author and accusations of
obnoxiousness. That is the whole problem we are discussing, with a view to
find some better method.
Okay, I get that. What I don't buy is the assertion that "the only reason
people
use Reply-to-All" is that they want replies to go to the list at least. I find
Reply-to-All useful in a much wider variety of situations than that, and I also
find that I get a lot of replies-to-all in mail that isn't sent to any list.
Sure, but I was speaking of the use of Reply-to-All when responding to
mailing lists, not to messages in general.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave,
CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5