[IRPCoalition] FW: Reply-To -setting
tapani.tarvainen at effi.org
Sun Dec 2 11:35:46 EET 2012
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 10:35:39AM +0200, Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) wrote:
> Interesting - While it is true that most lists are set to 'reply to' the
> list, I think Taipani's reasoning that people must make a concsious
> decision to reply to the list is very legitimate. I also think it is
> good to be exposed to, and respect, different mailing list cultures.
Yes. There're other "mailing list culture" things, too, like that when
replying, is it preferable to copy the entire message and write you
reply above it like you did, or to insert your comments in between
and trim unnecessary parts, like I'm doing now.
> In fact, if the settings for the civil society internet governance
> caucus list (IGC) was set to 'reply to author' itmight actually manage
> to find the time to read it:)
But it _does_ have the tendency to reduce clutter.
> As a matter of interest, this does actually not affect me. I use
> Thunderbird on Ubuntu and have an automatic option (clickable button)
> in my mail client to 'reply to list'. Don't mostmail clients offer that
> option these days?
Most of them probably do, but Microsoft Outlook famously does not.
The list, however, has been configured so that if you use "Reply to All",
which sends the reply separately to both list and author and possible
others Cc:'d, they won't get it twice anyway, if the addresses used
are same as on the list. (This can be turned off individually if desired.)
Thus users of Outlook and the like can use "Reply to All" without
worrying about people getting it twice.
If somebody is interested in lengthier arguments about it,
here're two, pro and against:
More information about the IRP