On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 09:48 +0000, Pete Biggs wrote:
(If that seems odd, remember that the person who replies cannot know if you're subscribed to the list or not, so it's horribly rude of them to *drop* you from the direct recipients and potentially cut you out of the conversation. See http://david.woodhou.se/reply-to-list.html )Hmm, *I* think it's "horribly rude" to ask a question on a mailing list to which you aren't subscribed.
It's not just about asking questions. Someone might have been added to Cc because they can *answer* a question. Like Claire, in the examples discussed at the above URL. Or sometimes a message is quite reasonably cross-posted to more than one list, and it's inappropriate to fork the discussion by continuing it only on *one* of the relevant lists.
I can explicitly say I don't want it to happen until I'm blue in the face, but it won't make any difference to anything, people will still keep doing what they think is "the only way it should be done" - or more likely what is most convenient for them.
It's not so much about "most convenient for them", but more about what's most convenient, or at least "least inconvenient" for more people. If you get a message in your inbox instead of the mailing list folder, I do appreciate that it annoys you, but at least you *have* the message. We're comparing with a situation where other people are just cut out of the decision *entirely*, which is far worse for them than the mild annoyance you experienced. Obviously, if you *know* someone's preferences and happen to remember them at the moment you reply, you can adhere to them (as I have done in this case, although you didn't do me the same courtesy). But the *default* behaviour needs to be the one with least inconvenience for most people, surely? -- dwmw2
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature