On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 17:34:11 +1000, Chris Velevitch <chris.velevitch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/27/06, Guy Rouillier <guyr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Done on purpose. Use "reply to all". > > Isn't that a bad habit to get into? There's been a lot of press about > people who habitually reply all. Reply all is the normal thing to do. If people don't want the extra copies they can use mail-followup-to headers to indicate that (or on majordomo lists such as used here, you can have the list server not send you copies when you address is copied on replies). By replying to all, it leaves the recipient the option to handle the mail differently when they are cc'd. > Besides, isn't the point of a mailing list is that it's a global > public discussion on a topic in which all subscribers can 'listen in' > on the discussion. You never know what useful information can be > obtained from seeing the full discussion. That's why you are supposed to do a reply all unless you have some specific reason not to. (e.g. a thank you response that doesn't add to the discussion). Also note that nonmembers can post to the lists (though a moderator needs to approve their messages), so you aren't even guarenteed that a poster is on the list. > > In addition, it's not the norm. I subscribe to lots of mailing lists > and postgresql.org lists are the only ones that I've seem do that. They are probably nontechnical lists. Most lists that I subscribe to don't have broken reply-to headers. (And when they do, I have my mail filter remove them, but that still prevents their normal use.) > > So what's the reasoning behind this choice? It breaks the normal use of reply-to.
