[GLLUG] Re: Reply-All (was New look for website)

Brian Hoort hoortbri@msu.edu
Wed, 15 May 2002 11:07:36 -0400

At 10:46 AM 5/15/2002, you wrote:
>Dpk wrote:
>>I can add it if is considered useful to the majority of list members,
>>but it was explicitly not set for reasons:
>You know, I appreciate the sentiments behind that page, and I'm all for 
>purity usually, but in real life, more then half the time I've tried to 
>send an email to the list, I've ended up sending it to just the poster instead.
>That includes when I was using Mutt, too.
>In real life, replies tend to go back to the list, and sending an email to 
>just the person is an unusual event; it deserves to have the harder 
>interface usage. (I only tolerate so many "Fix your brain" comments; if a 
>guy like me with a computer half-embedded in his brain only gets it right 
>half the time, it's officially Too Hard To Be Worthwhile. Computers bend 
>to humans, not vice versa.)

I am teetering on this same sentiment. I agree that the guy is right -- but 
who cares? I hate getting two copies of each message in response to a 
posting I've made (one to the list, one Reply-Alled to me).

What I think I've decided, is that I'll re-train myself to use Reply-All by 
default in all cases. Most of the time, on most messages, this is the 
appropriate action. The problem with this is that the mailer I'm forced to 
use at work (Eudora) doesn't have a keystroke shortcut for Reply-To-All 
like it does for Reply and I have trouble mousing due to some carpal-tunnel 
like wrist pain.

Anyway, for now I guess I vote we keep things the way they are. I'd like to 
digest those comments (``Reply-To'' Munging Considered Harmful) for awhile.

PS. I very nearly messed up on this message and sent it to J. Bowers...