replying to list (I give up)
in [General]
|
From: Ashley Sheridan on 21 Apr 2010 08:56 On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 08:56 -0400, David McGlone wrote: > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:42 +0200, Daniel Egeberg wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 14:27, David McGlone <david(a)dmcentral.net> wrote: > > > I give up. trying to reply to messages on this list is tedious. I can't > > > pinpoint whether it's because the list is set up to make replies go to > > > the OP or the OP has his reply-to in his mail client set, or most people > > > are hitting the reply-to button instead of simply reply. > > > > Then get a better email client if yours doesn't support "reply to all" > > or "reply to group". It's hardly the mailing list's fault that your > > client doesn't support that. > > My email client does support "reply to all", but it's IMHO > inconsiderate. > > Think about people that have to pay for every Mb they download. "reply > to all" causes these people to have to pay for duplicates. > > Now if somebody on this list was paying for their downloads, then you > and I am costing them money by using "reply to all" and now there are 2 > duplicate messages for them the download. > > How would you feel if this was you? > > -- > Blessings, > David M. > > Did you read the link that David Robley sent on the original thread you made? http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html What you're proposing would cause a lot of problems for the sake of a few people. And I hardly think that a few emails are going to cause a bandwidth issue for anybody. If bandwidth was such an issue, they'd be using an email client that only downloaded the email headers first, and from there you could easily discern the duplicate messages. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
From: Robert Cummings on 21 Apr 2010 09:19 David McGlone wrote: > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:49 +0200, Peter Lind wrote: >> On 21 April 2010 14:38, Hans Åhlin <ahlin.hans(a)kronan-net.com> wrote: >>> Why change the way that has been around for years and adopted by >>> multiple e-mail lists? >>> It feels like it's more problem to change the way for thousands of >>> users just to satisfy a couple of few. >> David was venting based on a discussion in another thread. I'm pretty >> sure he knows about the option to reply-all - that's part of the >> reason for venting (it sends multiple emails instead of just the one >> needed). The optimal scenario is to: 1) be able to quickly respond to >> the list, as that's the normal action you want to do and 2) not spam >> people with several emails for no reason (i.e. avoid replying to the >> OP AND the list). > > Exactly. I also feel bad for those who have to pay to download per Mb, > GB, etc. > > It's pitiful that once I send this E-Mail, Peter and Hans both will get > 2 of the exact messages. I thought you just wanted to know why it is the way it is? Now you're passing judgement. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP
From: Peter Lind on 21 Apr 2010 09:35 On 21 April 2010 14:56, Ashley Sheridan <ash(a)ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 08:56 -0400, David McGlone wrote: > >> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:42 +0200, Daniel Egeberg wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 14:27, David McGlone <david(a)dmcentral.net> wrote: >> > > I give up. trying to reply to messages on this list is tedious. I can't >> > > pinpoint whether it's because the list is set up to make replies go to >> > > the OP or the OP has his reply-to in his mail client set, or most people >> > > are hitting the reply-to button instead of simply reply. >> > >> > Then get a better email client if yours doesn't support "reply to all" >> > or "reply to group". It's hardly the mailing list's fault that your >> > client doesn't support that. >> >> My email client does support "reply to all", but it's IMHO >> inconsiderate. >> >> Think about people that have to pay for every Mb they download. "reply >> to all" causes these people to have to pay for duplicates. >> >> Now if somebody on this list was paying for their downloads, then you >> and I am costing them money by using "reply to all" and now there are 2 >> duplicate messages for them the download. >> >> How would you feel if this was you? >> >> -- >> Blessings, >> David M. >> >> > > > Did you read the link that David Robley sent on the original thread you > made? > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > > What you're proposing would cause a lot of problems for the sake of a > few people. And I hardly think that a few emails are going to cause a > bandwidth issue for anybody. If bandwidth was such an issue, they'd be > using an email client that only downloaded the email headers first, and > from there you could easily discern the duplicate messages. Except it wouldn't cause a lot of problems, now would it? As you've heard from quite a few others, many mailing lists work using the 'reply-to' ... and have happy users. Most of the points in the doc you posted a link to are viewpoints from someone that's used to one thing and hates the idea of things changing - whether or not it makes life easier (the "It makes things break" for instance ... calling replying to the list instead of the OP a "break" is rather farfetched unless you've stared at something you hate for so long you've become blinded byt it. Then there's the "Freedom of choice": well, where's my freedom of choice? I can't use 'reply' as I want to, so it's effectively reduced *my* freedom). Quick guess is by now, the majority of people clicking "reply" *mean* to reply to the list but in effect reply to the OP. Using "reply-to" would help these people. Anyone using "reply-all" would see no difference. So when you're advocating that many subscribers should ditch their email client and install Evolution instead of having *one* email list have it's settings changed a bit ... I start to wonder if you've considered things from both sides. Regards Peter -- <hype> WWW: http://plphp.dk / http://plind.dk LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/plind Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fake51 BeWelcome: Fake51 Couchsurfing: Fake51 </hype>
From: David McGlone on 21 Apr 2010 09:37 On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 13:56 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote: > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 08:56 -0400, David McGlone wrote: > > > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:42 +0200, Daniel Egeberg wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 14:27, David McGlone <david(a)dmcentral.net> wrote: > > > > I give up. trying to reply to messages on this list is tedious. I can't > > > > pinpoint whether it's because the list is set up to make replies go to > > > > the OP or the OP has his reply-to in his mail client set, or most people > > > > are hitting the reply-to button instead of simply reply. > > > > > > Then get a better email client if yours doesn't support "reply to all" > > > or "reply to group". It's hardly the mailing list's fault that your > > > client doesn't support that. > > > > My email client does support "reply to all", but it's IMHO > > inconsiderate. > > > > Think about people that have to pay for every Mb they download. "reply > > to all" causes these people to have to pay for duplicates. > > > > Now if somebody on this list was paying for their downloads, then you > > and I am costing them money by using "reply to all" and now there are 2 > > duplicate messages for them the download. > > > > How would you feel if this was you? > > > > -- > > Blessings, > > David M. > > > > > > > Did you read the link that David Robley sent on the original thread you > made? > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Yes. but if it was so harmful, why does the 40, 50 or so lists that I've been on, simply let you hit the reply and it goes back to the list? I am not arguing or upset, I am just so puzzled as to why the list has this behavior. It is tedious to have to remember which lists I am on will accept simply hitting the reply and those that don't. > > What you're proposing would cause a lot of problems for the sake of a > few people. I'm not proposing anything. Don't get me wrong. It's just so mind boggling why this behavior. I read and understand the idea behind that link, but if it was so harmful why is the majority of mailing lists allowing a simple "reply"? > And I hardly think that a few emails are going to cause a > bandwidth issue for anybody. If bandwidth was such an issue, they'd be > using an email client that only downloaded the email headers first, and > from there you could easily discern the duplicate messages. Thats true, I agree. But what about those that are not computer savvy? Take my wife for instance. LOL Also, I do not want this discussion to turn into a flame war or anything of such. I am simply just trying to have a discussion and learn why and how there is different behavior here, but not anywhere else. And I am also venting just a tad bit, because for the last 15 years up until I joined this list 6 months or so ago, I have never seen this issue, and changing habits after 15 years is quite hard, but I can't change my habits if I don't figure out how and why. PS. I used the "reply to list" on this e-mail. Do you know of any way I can add an icon to my tool bar instead of clicking on the Message menu or hitting ctrl+l? -- Blessings, David M.
From: David McGlone on 21 Apr 2010 09:33
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 09:19 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote: > David McGlone wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:49 +0200, Peter Lind wrote: > >> On 21 April 2010 14:38, Hans à hlin <ahlin.hans(a)kronan-net.com> wrote: > >>> Why change the way that has been around for years and adopted by > >>> multiple e-mail lists? > >>> It feels like it's more problem to change the way for thousands of > >>> users just to satisfy a couple of few. > >> David was venting based on a discussion in another thread. I'm pretty > >> sure he knows about the option to reply-all - that's part of the > >> reason for venting (it sends multiple emails instead of just the one > >> needed). The optimal scenario is to: 1) be able to quickly respond to > >> the list, as that's the normal action you want to do and 2) not spam > >> people with several emails for no reason (i.e. avoid replying to the > >> OP AND the list). > > > > Exactly. I also feel bad for those who have to pay to download per Mb, > > GB, etc. > > > > It's pitiful that once I send this E-Mail, Peter and Hans both will get > > 2 of the exact messages. > > I thought you just wanted to know why it is the way it is? Now you're > passing judgement. I'm not passing judgment, It just saddens me that I have to send multiple messages and this isn't because of anyone, it's because of my lack of knowledge on how to reply to lists that are set up in this way. But I think the "reply to list" like ash suggested solves the multiples problem. And on a positive note, If I wouldn't have brought this discussion up, I would have never known. Pretty sure I do now. -- Blessings, David M. |