[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [OT] 'double' replies

> > P.S. - please don't reply to me personally and the list as I don't
> > need double copies...
> Nobody 'needs' them, but I actually consider them a service which
> helps circumvent list lag. List posts often take considerably longer
> to reach me than direct mails do, and it has happened quite a few
> times that I replied to a post and got at least one reply before I got
> my original reply back from the list.

I agree. List lag gets really bad sometimes on lists.debian.org. Also,
these lists get frequent posts from non-subscribers, and we can't expect
authors to remember who is or isn't on the list. These are just two
reasons we customarily reply to both sender and list.

Another is that many of us filter mailing lists into separate accounts or
folders. My procmail recipes are set specifically to send personal replies
to my main inbox, while the list reply goes with other list traffic.

For these and other reasons, convention dictates on this list (and many
others) that replies are copied to the sender.  We can try to remember
otherwise in your case, but in the end you'll have to find some way to
deal with duplicate responses. If you really want to see each message
exactly once, you can filter out duplicates, or you can use the
Mail-Followup-To header (most mail agents can do this automatically for
mail to specific locations), or you can just delete the extra copies
without reading them.

(Yes, I know that the Mail-Followup-To field is controversial and not
universally recognized, but in practice it works quite well to control
list responses. See <http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html>.)

Reply to: