Re: [Evolution] Reply for list messages should go back to the list

[Pete Biggs <pete biggs org uk>]

> > What I would like is for the Reply-to-List to be more prominent to
> > encourage people to use that rather than just blindly replying to the
> > user.
>
> Certainly I'm with you on the 'rather than just blindly replying to the
> user' bit -- there's now a pop-up which will say "you're replying in
> private; do you really want to do that?".

You keep saying "now", presumably what you mean is that you have
submitted code that does these things?  Also in your web page you say
"what we currently have ...", when what you really mean is "it is
proposed that in the next version of Evolution we will have ...".  Or
have I missed something?

Also on the "Group Reply" button thing, how about you change the label
to "Reply to ..." and then have in the drop down list "Reply to All",
"Reply to List", "Reply to Sender" - that covers the various none-direct
reply scenaria. 

> Would you like to send me a well-reasoned counter argument that I can
> present in http://david.woodhou.se/reply-to-list.html ?
>
> Your response, if I recall correctly, was that the affected people
> (Claire, Karl and maybe Fred in my examples) were being rude because
> they wanted to operate in 'write-only' mode, without listening to what
> anyone else had to say... and that was your reasoning for not *letting*
> them see what you had to say, which confused me because it seemed a
> little circular. Personally, I'm more like Fred and I prefer *not* to
> operate in write-only mode, which is precisely *why* I don't want to be
> dropped from Cc when people reply to me. If you could phrase your view
> in terms of the examples on that page (and perhaps provide new examples,
> if you think there are relevant usage models that I've left out), then
> that would be interesting.

I'm sorry, this is going to have to be a quick reply (because I have a
real job to do!).  The problem is trying to squeeze all usage cases into
one set of rules - it's not going to work.  I can't give you a set of
rules that works correctly every time to everyone's satisfaction.

What I think is rude and unacceptable are the people who write a message
to a list where *they* are asking for help and they say "don't forget to
CC: me in any replies because I don't want to read the list".  If you
are asking for help, at least be polite enough to meet people half way.
It is often the same people who ask FAQs.

Replying to a message of mine on a mailing list by CC:'ing me is really
just a royal PITA - I either get one message without the list headers or
two messages and I have to work out which is the mailing list version.
I see no point in CC:'ing me (or indeed me CC:'ing somebody who is on
the list) - I will see the message, I don't need another copy.  I also
don't buy the time delay argument - discussions on mailing lists are
rarely time critical; besides on some of the work mailing lists, I get
the mailing list version *before* the CC: version (there's an Exchange
server involved in one of the mail routes).

If everyone habitually uses Reply-all, the CC: list eventually becomes
unmanageable.  I've just had a look on one of my local mailing lists - 3
people in the To:, 6 people in the CC: along with two mailing lists.
Everyone mentioned is on both lists already - there's just no point.

In this thread there are what, 10-15 people who have contributed.  Are
you expecting everyone to be listed in the CC:?  At what point is the
list culled and under what criteria?

There are times when a CC: is acceptable - people who are co-opted into
a list discussion (usually against their will!) are certainly perfectly
at liberty to remain as a CC:.  i.e. the Claire in your example.  Cross
posted lists should also be maintained (i.e. Karl), but there is no
reason to CC: individuals if they are on either/both of the lists.

To summarise. I am not saying don't use Reply-all, what I am saying is
don't CC: messages to people who are already on the mailing list.

And it wasn't a quick reply after all ...

P.