The main reason I'm responding to this is to point out that if you use digests, it's possible to configure it so that it sends each message as an attachment instead of just dumping them all into the message body.
If you see something you want to respond to, you can just open up the corresponding attachment and hit reply to that. To set this up, go to the mailmain page (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/lilypond-user), find the "Get MIME or Plain Text Digests?" question (currently the third), and set it to to MIME. A caveat: It's not the greatest interface, for third reasons. First, depending on your email client you *may* have to open each attachment to read the contents. However, this isn't a problem with Thunderbird and probably others that display text attachments inline with the email text, and what you see if you open the email in Thunderbird (or look at it in the preview pane) is basically identical to the plain-text digest mode. Second, if you're using something like Thunderbird that does so, finding the attachment that corresponds to a message sometimes takes a couple of tries, especially because each message actually comes through twice and (at least in Thunderbird) you can only reply to one of them. Not sure what's up with that. Third, it seems to lead to "Re: Re:" headings for some reason. Not sure what's up with that either. As a result it's not the best choice for everyone, but if you're like me and want to cut down on the number of emails, but still skim over them for ones of interest, but almost never reply, but want to be careful to provide the correct in-reply-to etc. headers, I think it works well. Evan ---- [I have reservations about sending the rest of this because I don't want to carry the topic to far afield, but what the hell.] Now, that being said and because I'm sure no one cares, IMO the way the Lilypond list is set up ("reply" goes to the sender) is *absolutely* the correct way to run a mailing list, and the alternative is completely maddening. On 9/12/2013 1:21 PM, Carl Peterson wrote: > (1) 99% of the time, if I'm replying to a message, I'm intending to > reply to the list. Defaults are usually selected to in some way minimize > effort, which brings me to (2), I'm lazy. Reply all requires extra > mouse-clicks. Here's the flip side of that argument. What action is *common* is only one of the two things that should be considered when assigning a default. Also should be considered is how damaging the other choice is. Replying to the list when you want to respond just to the sender has the potential to be a much more "damaging" action than replying to just the sender when you want to send to the list. On 9/12/2013 2:03 PM, Carl Peterson wrote: > It also discourages the delightful idiots who insist on replying all > to a mass mailing (when the original sender didn't have the decency or > know-how to stick the recipient names in the bcc). Personally I never really got that argument. I almost always reply all to discussions like that. Why? The following two assumptions: 1) If the original sender CC'd someone, it's because they thought that person would be interested in the contents. 2) If someone is interested in an email, there's a good chance they'll be interested in follow-up emails. I definitely pay attention to who I keep on the CC list and will remove people if I have reason to believe the followup is a lot less relevant for them, but that's my general rule of thumb. Maybe it's just because I don't get enough emails, but I get *way* more annoyed when it seems like I've been dropped from a mail thread that was relevant to me then I do when I get extra emails that are *not* relevant. Personally, I don't see the reason for BCC besides a CYA move. Evan _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
