Message-ID: <411A8561.8060006@joeconway.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:45:21 -0700
From: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
Cc: Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@thenilgiris.com>,
	pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: reply to setting
References: <0408070933080K.01190@thenilgiris.com>
	<20040811191321.GA14350@wolff.to>
In-Reply-To: <20040811191321.GA14350@wolff.to>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 09:33:08 +0530,
>   Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@thenilgiris.com> wrote:
>>any reason why the default reply-to on this list should not be set to the 
>>list? I keep replying to postings only to find later that the reply goes to 
>>the OP and not to the list. reply-all button results in needless duplication
> 
> The duplication is needless. Direct replies very often get to the recipient
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                  is *not* needless?

> faster than ones sent through the lists. It is also possible that the direct
> replies might be handled differently by the recipient (e.g. a filter may put
> them in different folders).

This is very true. In fact, I get mildly annoyed when people *don't* 
include the direct reply to me, because I very actively filter/redirect 
my mail. Replies directly to me are pretty much guaranteed to be seen 
quickly, but the ones that go to the list might get lost among the 
hundreds of posts that go into my "postgres" inbox every day. I think 
many other people do something similar.

> Recipients that prefer not to get separate copies can indicate that desire
> by including an appropiate mail-followup-to header.

Also true.

Joe