On Oct-19, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 15:19, Erik Lechak wrote:
>
> Almost got to this one within a week! ;-)
>
> >
> > 2) When I reply should I 'reply to all' or just reply to
> > perl6-internals? (This is my first mailing list)
>
> I know Dan addressed part of this in his reply, but there's one
> other reason for 'reply to all' vice sending everything through the
> list.
>
> I rate/categorize most of my mail based on who it was addressed to.
> Mail sent, in reply to a message I sent, which only goes through the
> list falls into my "I'll get to it one day" bin. If I'm directly
> addressed, it's flagged and moved to the top of the queue, which these
> days also means I'll get to it one day, but it will at least be the
> morning of that day, and not late evening.
Me too. I send all perl6-internals stuff to a separate folder, but
stuff cc'ed directly to me gets copied into my main mailbox as well.
(Although I'm not sure which folder gets checked more often.)
Also, there's some magic header that people can set. It makes nice
mailers omit the previous sender when you hit reply to all. I don't
remember the name of it. But its existence is added reassurance that
doing 'reply to all' won't annoy the people who *really* can't stand
getting copies of mail.
Aha! I think I found a specimen:
Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ooh, so it looks like you explicitly set the list of recipients this
way. (This was from a posting by Simon Cozens, so apparently his
mailer constructs the full list and then removes him from it.) I'll
put a sample one in the header of this message. Try 'reply to all' and
see who it tries to send to. If it's [EMAIL PROTECTED], then your mailer
is nice. (Or maybe there's some reason why this is considered bad form
that I don't know about. Apologies in advance.)
