From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o7H5Vkno026926 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:31:47 -0500 Received: from mailsrv14.zmi.at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 9228C1D74BFF for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:32:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv14.zmi.at (mailsrv1.zmi.at [212.69.164.54]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id rXBVRYf0OQenSNTY for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:32:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.i.zmi.at (h081217106033.dyn.cm.kabsi.at [81.217.106.33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mailsrv2.i.zmi.at", Issuer "power4u.zmi.at" (not verified)) by mailsrv14.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 78ED817A for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 07:32:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from saturn.localnet (saturn.i.zmi.at [10.72.27.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mailsrv.i.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D83C401C2E for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 07:32:11 +0200 (CEST) From: Michael Monnerie Subject: Re: [META-LIST] Now: perennial "reply-to-all" Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 07:32:02 +0200 References: <201008131300.40536@zmi.at> <201008152052.59870@zmi.at> <4C68F8AE.2010006@hardwarefreak.com> In-Reply-To: <4C68F8AE.2010006@hardwarefreak.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201008170732.10565@zmi.at> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5474154701318837436==" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com --===============5474154701318837436== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1303441.apTFxkH0Rn"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --nextPart1303441.apTFxkH0Rn Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Montag, 16. August 2010 Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Why does "everyone" on this list "reply-to-all" when 99% of the time > it is totally unnecessary, redundant, and potentially ruffles a > sender's feathers, as in this case? =20 I'm also on several lists, but the only list where reply-to-all is used=20 is this one - so I followed the way it's done here without having=20 questioned why. =2D-=20 mit freundlichen Gr=FCssen, Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc it-management Internet Services http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee] Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 ****** Aktuelles Radiointerview! ****** http://www.it-podcast.at/aktuelle-sendung.html // Wir haben im Moment zwei H=E4user zu verkaufen: // http://zmi.at/langegg/ // http://zmi.at/haus2009/ --nextPart1303441.apTFxkH0Rn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkxqHtoACgkQzhSR9xwSCbRGngCeIKJXg18ePdodupxYxPcDH3PY xREAn1UWf6VsnaZmiT8UJhZd46NOawyf =0NS7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1303441.apTFxkH0Rn-- --===============5474154701318837436== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs --===============5474154701318837436==--