From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OUd2g-0007Ys-Nu for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 10:00:18 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F0829E0B4B; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 09:59:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4182E0B4B for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 09:59:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwb31 with SMTP id 31so87452wwb.10 for ; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 02:59:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=Sy3+LwlNWj0bqGUVit9iOH5vl96V7bCzZ/EYB65cbBk=; b=uQlFzptSllxDhCVpLLYlWtxyn6sWL/YQHccfho5wR7nm02KlUuMo0n7COe1sopDAnF iMlwPvTiLuZ55iABGeZA/9f8G3rjZaUiM0YlcXKX0hSn96Za44iNCShl2rdZx/LEjV1q kSbycVfAjtvPzuCh+GmL/CcYc0evQh8SGTta4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=GLGaPdkHG0QtptdaeCZ//UehhLsMeiZjmxvViLlJafzpAB3aWkSXGVVNobgWi/eW0l RtZNkpqUGOzljLs7ezWaTCUqpDI+KrHJWCaoKYRljy4STiMhpnQAdGl/r/AJyMtif4bE u98SB2ceqKcJVRnJgAD1B+lQOUk+pd02T/zJ8= Received: by 10.213.27.200 with SMTP id j8mr3723875ebc.29.1278064773116; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 02:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nazgul.localnet (dustpuppy.is.co.za [196.14.169.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a48sm4053035eei.12.2010.07.02.02.59.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 02 Jul 2010 02:59:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Mailing list policy on reply Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:56:21 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.34-ck-r1; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; ) References: <20100702005433.GK9344@vidovic> <20100702091438.44274c98@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20100702091438.44274c98@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201007021156.21455.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: c00223fe-e10d-47ef-a776-914f30ca04f4 X-Archives-Hash: 665bca76619e9acf6e80af80f7328762 On Friday 02 July 2010 10:14:38 Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 02:54:33 +0200, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > > It is usually better and prefer the "answer to all" policy as it permit > > to be notified of an answer without having to track the whole mailing > > list. > > If I post to the list, I expect a reply via the list. Getting two replies > is annoying, especially if I don't realise the private one is a duplicate > and reply to it before checking the list. One of the main points of a list > is that it is a public discussion, archived for all to see, fragmenting > conversations into private mail defeats that point. Very true. I'm not sending this very reply to Neil. I'm sending it to the entire group of people on the list. That is the entire intent of a mailing list and the Reply-To policy reflects that. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com