On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 07:33:04AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2021-08-06 at 07:28, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 06:54:53AM -0400, Polyna-Maude > > Racicot-Summerside wrote: > > > >> Hi, > > > > [...] > > > >> Maybe this is obvious for you, but for myself, I don't take note > >> of who's "on the list" and "who's not" [...] > > > > Easy: if the message comes from the list, reply goes to the list. > > Your MUA should be able to help you with that, if it's worth its > > salt. > > I get enough accidental direct replies (proportionally speaking, anyway) > that I don't consider this practical. There are too many times when a > reply that was sent privately *should* have gone via the list, and so > the reply to that should go in turn back to the list.
Definitely. I don't get it perfectly every time, either. I only took issue with Polina's stance, which could be read as "it's not even worth trying". > (Which in turn happens because of the whole Reply-To-header argument > thing, and everything around it which I don't want to spark off again > now...) :-) > That said, there are definitely times when it's clear whether a direct > reply was unintentional vs. not, and outside of special circumstances > the ones intentionally sent off-list should be kept that way without > mutual agreement. Of course, a banned person can try to sneak in by cc-ing to the list. A group reply is then all it's needed. "Apply some judgement" seems, as always, to be the right thing. Cheers - t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
