On 16.01.2014 17:27, Noel Butler wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 16:40 -0800, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 16.01.2014 16:02, Noel Butler wrote:
The vast majority of MUA software on the planet has only Reply and Reply All. Those users are using Reply All, so as to keep it a group discussion.
Where did I say we needed another reply-x_function?
"Reply All" has a standard, decades old behavior, and mailing list robots are designed around the assumption that it is used.
Where did I say it wasn't?
you seem to be pretty crash hot at putting words into peoples mouths when they did say no such thing, keep on track with my comments and not the comments of others when replying to me, else dont waste your time, or mine, trying to force yor options down others throat when it is not the content I brought to the discussion.
Okay, whoa! Sorry.
I certainly don't want to put words into people's mouths; I almost think you're confusing me with out belligerent friend.
Rewinding, then, and returning then to your original comment:
NB> [I]t annoys me greatly that people find the need to reply directly NB> as well as a list, I mean we *are* all on the same list, so we will *all* NB> yes, including intended recipient, get the post, do people think that NB> sending it directly will get read sooner?
It should perhaps have asked: what is it that you suspect these people who have this "need" are doing, exactly? I mean, step by step.
My intent above was not to insinuate that you said something you didn't say but only to hypothesize how people end up doing that.
(Are you talking about people actually posting something twice to different destinations? Or replying to you directly and CC'ing the list?)
You said that in response to
RH> > the opposite is true such users *do not* want both copies
NB> Another rare occasion where I agree with Harald,
But these two copies are simply the consequence of someone doing Reply All (which Mr. Harald thinks is a bad idea, at least in connection with mailing lists) and the list neglecting to filter out the duplication. So that is where I got the idea that you don't agree with Reply All for mailing list discussions, in expressing the agreement above! See?
The assumption that "we are in the same list" only holds when all the recipients of the message are subscribers of the list (because it rejects posts
and if they are not, they become irrelevant (another pet hate, carry out *general discussions* across multiple lists)
I don't quite see what you mean there. It's possible to have an on-topic discussion that isn't cross-posted, which involves decently behaving non-subscribers, right?
(To spare you future bother, I hereby acknowledge that you never said it *wasn't* possible and I'm not putting words in your mouth.)