Re: Announcing 1.2a8 (stability, monitor hotplug, "are you sure you want to quit?", xephyr)
Re: Announcing 1.2a8 (stability, monitor hotplug, "are you sure you want to quit?", xephyr)
- Subject: Re: Announcing 1.2a8 (stability, monitor hotplug, "are you sure you want to quit?", xephyr)
- From: "Mark J. Reed" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 19:01:19 -0500
But even if you don't use the function much, being able to reply to
the sender is useful. If you set the Reply-To to the list, then the
only way to reply privately is to copy and paste their email address.
On 11/9/07, Nathan <email@hidden> wrote:
> I understand the reasoning for how it's theoretically simpler this
> way, but I've been on so many lists for so long that the reply-to DOES
> go to the list, that I typically (pause while I realize that even this
> time I forgot to push reply-to-all...DANG IT--there, fixed it) don't
> remember to press reply-to-all on the two lists that I've ever
> encountered that subscribe to this philosophy. What's the point of a
> public list if the default reply option is a private message?
>
> Actually, I think that's the basic disconnect between the two
> philosophies. The one side makes the assumption that you are equally
> likely to reply to just a single person on the list as you are to
> reply to the whole list. The other side consists of people like me
> who, in practice, never have any use for replying to individuals on
> the list with information that we wouldn't want the whole list to
> have. So, if you have the mindset that you want all your
> list-related communication to be available to the list, having the
> most-commonly-pressed button "reply" NOT go to the list just
> complicates things instead of simplifying things like the page you
> linked to below claims.
>
> I suppose that if you want to be able to often send
> sensitive-in-some-way (confidential?) or offensive messages to
> individual list-posters, then the behavior we're discussing would
> actually be a bonus. Until that person includes your email in a
> message to the list, defeating the purpose. To me, that whole mindset
> is somewhat orthogonal to the idea of a "public" list in the first
> place, but I can understand why others would disagree.
>
> ~ Nathan
>
> On Nov 9, 2007 3:50 PM, James Elliott <email@hidden> wrote:
> > I can't understand your complaint; this list uses completely standard
> > semantics for "reply". If you want to reply to everyone, that's why
> > your mail program has a "reply all" command. And this way, mistakes
> > are much less embarrassing and recoverable.
> > See http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> >
> > I'm not comfortable being on lists which break the rules in the way
> > you seem to want this list to do so.
> >
> > -Jim
> >
> > On Nov 9, 2007, at 16:44, Nathan wrote:
> > > (Alright, trying it again with "reply all". Dang non-standard
> > > reply-to!)
> >
> > > ~ Nathan
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> > > X11-users mailing list (email@hidden)
> > > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/
> > > mailman/options/x11-users/email@hidden
> > >
> > > This email sent to email@hidden
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> X11-users mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
>
--
Mark J. Reed <email@hidden>
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
X11-users mailing list (email@hidden)
This email sent to email@hidden