[LAU] Reply to

[Gwenhwyfaer]

On 09/08/2011, Thorsten Wilms <t_w_ at freenet.de> wrote:
> The other way round (list instead of just sender) is worse, so making it
> a clear decision to use Reply-to-list instead of Reply(-to-sender) is of
> benefit. Clients with no or not obvious enough Reply-to-list are broken.

They may be broken, but they are probably also popular - Gmail, for
example. Sorry, but I'm not going to change my mail client for one
list, and I doubt many people are; and when it's a list like this one,
which is targeted at end users who may not care very much about
anything but getting music made, dogmatism on this point is a
user-hostile position.

Not that I necessarily disagree with the choice. If you want to reply
to list, reply-to-all does it, and that's available on just about any
mail client anywhere; whereas if reply-to-list were the default, you
need to cut & paste the individual's name. It's the use of an
ideological position to defend the choice, when there is a rational
non-dogmatic argument easily available, that pisses me off.

(What I'd prefer to see is the option on the user page, so that those
who want to reply to list by default can tick the checkbox and do so,
and those of us who have got used to hitting reply-to-all or have
clients with reply-to-list functionality can carry on as before.)