[antlr-interest] a request about "reply-all" to list

[Loring Craymer]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: antlr-interest-bounces at antlr.org [mailto:antlr-interest-
> bounces at antlr.org] On Behalf Of Maurice van der Pot
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 1:40 PM
> To: antlr-interest at antlr.org
> Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] a request about "reply-all" to list
> 
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:46:40AM -0700, Loring Craymer wrote:
> > I find that very irritating myself, but consider that a design flaw that
> > should be fixed at the source--the mail list handler--and not by those
> of us
> > using the system.  This has been a source of recurring discussions on
> the
> > mailing list, with IIRC Mitchell arguing for the current mode as "proper
> > etiquette".
> 
> If Mitchell or whoever already was arguing for this, he probably would
> have mentioned http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html. Just in
> case he didn't, please read it.

I've read it; the technical arguments are weak, largely because this is a
user-interface issue and the author ignores that. It presupposes a very
different view of mailing lists--that "reply to sender" is common
usage--that does not apply here.  [I do belong to lists for which the
argument could apply--those are typically small lists which are only
transiently used.]  The failure mode for this list is not to broadcast
personal email, but to reply to the sender instead of the group.

> 
> > I see this as one of those cases where "civil disobedience" is
> > appropriate--you should fix the problem, not us.  In fact, the dual
> messages
> > may be a plus until that happens--it keeps the aggravation level high
> enough
> > that the problem might get fixed!
> 
> Maybe you should be blaming your mail client instead. The client I'm
> using allows me to define lists I am subscribed to and has 3 options for
> replying: reply (to author only, which should be the reply-to), list
> reply (to the list address that I defined) and group reply (to all
> recipients).

Let's see, now:  "There is a design defect in the core software package
which we do not intend to fix and which causes us problems as well as the
user community.  All users should work around this so that we do not suffer
from our own mistakes".  Do you really find that a compelling argument?

> And while we're talking about things that irritate, I find top-posting
> and quoting entire messages without using them as context to be quite
> annoying as well.

Sorry about that:  I started worrying less about cutting messages when the
incidence of off-the-wall replies and misattributions went way up on this
list.

--Loring

> 
> Regards,
> Maurice.
> 
> --
> Maurice van der Pot
> 
> Gentoo Linux Developer   griffon26 at gentoo.org     http://www.gentoo.org
> Creator of BiteMe!       griffon26 at kfk4ever.com   http://www.kfk4ever.com