xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [META-LIST] Now: perennial "reply-to-all"

To: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [META-LIST] Now: perennial "reply-to-all"
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 05:01:50 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <201008170732.10565@xxxxxx>
References: <201008131300.40536@xxxxxx> <201008152052.59870@xxxxxx> <4C68F8AE.2010006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201008170732.10565@xxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 07:32:02AM +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Montag, 16. August 2010 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Why does "everyone" on this list "reply-to-all" when 99% of the time
> >  it is totally unnecessary, redundant, and potentially ruffles a
> >  sender's feathers, as in this case?
>  
> I'm also on several lists, but the only list where reply-to-all is used 
> is this one - so I followed the way it's done here without having 
> questioned why.

It's done by all Lists in the Linux development universe, and it's the
only sane way to handle a list.  We don't require people to subsribe to
post to the list, and keeping everyone in the To/Cc list means it
arrives at those people as well.  In addition it allows subscribes that
are on tons of lists to prioritize discussions they're actually involved
in personally by getting a copy in the inbox that can be replied to ASAP
while also having an archived copy in the list folder.  Every other way
to run a list is simply insane.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>