On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 18:44:25 +1000,
Chris Velevitch <chris.velevitch@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "One day I accidentally sent a private, personal reply out over one of
> my own damn lists."
>
> It's like he accidentally drove down a one way street in the wrong
> direction, so he now drives everywhere in reverse, just in case it
> happens again. He obviously got surprised by that, in the "Principle
> of Least Surprise", it surprises me to find only one person gets my
> response.
The cost of sending a reply to only one person by mistake is almost always
going to b relatively low. The cost of accidentally replying to everyone
will often be relatively high, so it makes sense to use a system that trades
off probability of replying to all by mistake for probability of replying
to just the sender by mistake. But you are correct, that isn't a great
reason to determine how lists operate. The real reason is that it breaks
the use of the preexisting reply-to header and even though that header is
rarely used, mailing lists shouldn't be replacing it.
> This article is 4 years old and he is unix user who prefers elm as a
> mail reader. I'm fine with his choice, but I use 3 mailer readers
> (gmail, outlook, opera) and none of them have a the same features as
> elm.
>
> I think it's an inappropriate choice given the current norms.
Your right, he should be using mutt.