On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 18:44:25 +1000, Chris Velevitch <chris.velevitch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > "One day I accidentally sent a private, personal reply out over one of > my own damn lists." > > It's like he accidentally drove down a one way street in the wrong > direction, so he now drives everywhere in reverse, just in case it > happens again. He obviously got surprised by that, in the "Principle > of Least Surprise", it surprises me to find only one person gets my > response. The cost of sending a reply to only one person by mistake is almost always going to b relatively low. The cost of accidentally replying to everyone will often be relatively high, so it makes sense to use a system that trades off probability of replying to all by mistake for probability of replying to just the sender by mistake. But you are correct, that isn't a great reason to determine how lists operate. The real reason is that it breaks the use of the preexisting reply-to header and even though that header is rarely used, mailing lists shouldn't be replacing it. > This article is 4 years old and he is unix user who prefers elm as a > mail reader. I'm fine with his choice, but I use 3 mailer readers > (gmail, outlook, opera) and none of them have a the same features as > elm. > > I think it's an inappropriate choice given the current norms. Your right, he should be using mutt.
