On 2012/02/28 11:11 (GMT-0500) Brian K. White composed:
4) And as you just admitted, the stated nettiquet here is even officially reply-list.
It may be stated such, but actions speak a lot louder than words here. The default action from an intuitive response reading a typical topical post and wanting to post a reply is to reply to the sender. But because our list admins adhere strictly to an RFC that is counter to intuitive action, many replies don't go where they are intended. What's probably worse, is it leads to repeated threads like this routinely polluting the list and the archives. This is a public discussion list, not a public questions/private replies list. As such the only logical default response is reply to list, since without the list we wouldn't be getting anything - the *list* is the sender, not the post author. Regardless how many URLS strictness adherents submit claiming munging is harmful, how many demands they make that subscribers adopt or complaints they make that subscribers don't adopt "competent" email clients, and how much they repeat their mantras, what's more harmful is the noise, broken threads, and delayed or lost responses that reply-to-author by default policy causes. Munging is useful, and more appropriate here than the noisy, inefficient, long-standing, current configuration, something most of the biggest most well known list admins figured out years ago. http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org