On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 09:43 -0500, Brian Mearns wrote: > > Even 7 years ago, I don't think this article was really as relevant as > the author seems to. If you're using Elm, then fantastic, but I > personally have never come across a mail agent that supports "reply to > group". The much more common "reply-all" feature is too often a > detriment to communications and to the network. Unless the mailing > list program is smart enough to detect that someone in the list is > also explicitly given as a recipient and removes that address from the > list of people to whom the message is sent (I would be fairly > surprised and moderately impressed if it did), then reply-all will > cause excess traffic on the network and will end up with the previous > author receiving two copies. I would be annoyed at mail software that did that; direct addressed mail should be delivered. Users can choose to dedupe mail if they want using the unique message-id. (And many mail servers do do this). As for your assertion that few mail clients support reply to list/reply to group; I note that you use gmail, and gmail is pretty feature poor. You might try using thunderbird or evolution, both of which support reply to list and have for quite some time. ... > If I was the only one suffering from this problem, I would agree that > the issue is mine to resolve. Based on the three other follow -ups > that have said the same thing, it seems to me to be a pretty common > problem. The alternate configuration also causes problems. This list has some N subscribers, of which 3 agree that they current config confuses them from time to time. That doesn't provide any evidence that the other N do or don't get confuses, nor that if the configuration is changed what number will get confused in the opposite direction. -Rob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
