From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/67302
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Tassilo Horn <tassilo@member.fsf.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Usage of gnus mailing list mode
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:12:24 +0200
Message-ID: <87r688s3af.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de>
References: <87fxoyifjg.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de>
	<buoabewzalf.fsf@dhapc248.dev.necel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219993993 24104 80.91.229.12 (29 Aug 2008 07:13:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:13:13 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: ding@gnus.org
To: Miles Bader <miles.bader@necel.com>
Original-X-From: ding-owner+M15753@lists.math.uh.edu Fri Aug 29 09:14:04 2008
Return-path: <ding-owner+M15753@lists.math.uh.edu>
Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org
Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18])
	by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1KYyBF-0003VD-8K
	for ding-account@gmane.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:14:01 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu)
	by util0.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <ding-owner+M15753@lists.math.uh.edu>)
	id 1KYy9s-0007nJ-Q5; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:12:36 -0500
Original-Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32])
	by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <tassilo@member.fsf.org>)
	id 1KYy9r-0007n3-Iu
	for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:12:35 -0500
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51])
	by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <tassilo@member.fsf.org>)
	id 1KYy9n-0004tZ-Pf
	for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:12:35 -0500
Original-Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
	id 1KYy9p-0007ce-00
	for <ding@gnus.org>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:12:33 +0200
Original-Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41])
	by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1CEE15B859;
	Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:12:29 -0400 (EDT)
Original-Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160])
  by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:12:29 -0400
X-Sasl-enc: 0eiJRfJfhYBPQeBhBf9fChLRixMM/OfDiqv6Vc78E3Vo 1219993948
Original-Received: from thinkpad.tsdh.de (p54AF246A.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.175.36.106])
	by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2895FB09E;
	Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:12:27 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <buoabewzalf.fsf@dhapc248.dev.necel.com> (Miles Bader's message
	of "Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:52:44 +0900")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-Spam-Score: -3.6 (---)
List-ID: <ding.gnus.org>
Precedence: bulk
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:67302

Miles Bader <miles.bader@necel.com> writes:

Hi Miles,

>> Personally, I don't like it too much if people reply to my mailing
>> list articles to both me and the list.  IMHO that's redundant and
>> annoying.  Is that a convention and are there good reasons for such a
>> double-reply?
>
> It is indeed a (very long-standing) convention, with a pretty good
> justification -- when you're not _sure_ the other person reads the
> list, it's better to be safe than sorry.  And you can't be sure, in
> general.

Well, ok.  Sometimes that may be correct.  But most mailing lists allow
posting only by subscribers, so there's no reason to handle the issue
that the original poster doesn't read the list.

Bye,
Tassilo