[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [META-LIST] Now: perennial "reply-to-all"
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:16:00 -0500
In-reply-to: <20100817090150.GA1294@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <201008131300.40536@xxxxxx> <201008152052.59870@xxxxxx> <4C68F8AE.2010006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201008170732.10565@xxxxxx> <20100817090150.GA1294@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6
Christoph Hellwig put forth on 8/17/2010 4:01 AM:
> 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.

Thanks Christoph.  That makes sense.


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