| 1 |
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:59:23 +0100, frank paulsen <frank.paulsen@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Bart <scarfboy@×××××.com> writes: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > *discovers 'reply' doesn't send to the list - for about the sixth time in |
| 5 |
> > as many months* |
| 6 |
> > (Can someone please add a reply-to to the list software? It's a pain.) |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Okay, I'll use the reply-to-all on gmail. See how it's annoying? I am |
| 11 |
*not* going to continually do the work of a |
| 12 |
click-click-select-delete-click every single message because it's |
| 13 |
against someone's sense of purism. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Fact: When I reply to a list message, it's meant to go to the list 99% |
| 16 |
of the time. |
| 17 |
Educated guess: That's true for most people, any mail client abilities |
| 18 |
vary. Notably, a minority of us uses elm:) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The argument that we've taken a feature away is not too valid in this |
| 21 |
case - if you want to send to the author, you can. It'd be called |
| 22 |
'reply to all', or 'thinking about what address to use'. |
| 23 |
In the meantime, my replying to the list isn't replying to the list, |
| 24 |
and as far as I can remember, this is the only list that does it this |
| 25 |
way, which makes it counterintuitive, and I don't necessarily ever |
| 26 |
even notice my mistake. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I don't think it disturbs threading, and there's little point in |
| 29 |
accurate tracking of who said who when you have all the mail anyhow. |
| 30 |
You'll find it easily even if you don't do gmail-laziness. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
It's evil, but as far as I can see, a lesser one, or at least a less |
| 33 |
annoying one. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
But yeah, whatever, I'll survive. Just don't count on me always replying:) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
Archives