From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o7HIFXLl061205 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:15:33 -0500 Received: from greer.hardwarefreak.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 7C6C64E0293 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from greer.hardwarefreak.com (mo-65-41-216-221.sta.embarqhsd.net [65.41.216.221]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id JE0jlnTuHIV445Fb for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.53] (gffx.hardwarefreak.com [192.168.100.53]) by greer.hardwarefreak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514886C310 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:16:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4C6AD1E0.2020304@hardwarefreak.com> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:16:00 -0500 From: Stan Hoeppner MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [META-LIST] Now: perennial "reply-to-all" References: <201008131300.40536@zmi.at> <201008152052.59870@zmi.at> <4C68F8AE.2010006@hardwarefreak.com> <201008170732.10565@zmi.at> <20100817090150.GA1294@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20100817090150.GA1294@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com Christoph Hellwig put forth on 8/17/2010 4:01 AM: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 07:32:02AM +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote: >> 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? >> >> I'm also on several lists, but the only list where reply-to-all is used >> is this one - so I followed the way it's done here without having >> questioned why. > > It's done by all Lists in the Linux development universe, and it's the > only sane way to handle a list. We don't require people to subsribe to > post to the list, and keeping everyone in the To/Cc list means it > arrives at those people as well. In addition it allows subscribes that > are on tons of lists to prioritize discussions they're actually involved > in personally by getting a copy in the inbox that can be replied to ASAP > while also having an archived copy in the list folder. Every other way > to run a list is simply insane. Thanks Christoph. That makes sense. -- Stan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs