From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Reply to list [was: Different key maps in different dired buffers] Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:02:29 +0300 Message-ID: <83mvnc0vze.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4159df5c-3545-4c5a-829f-abc80f620813@default> <57473688.4020503@gmail.com> <20160527070959.GB27615@tuxteam.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1464336205 12856 80.91.229.3 (27 May 2016 08:03:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 08:03:25 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 27 10:03:21 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1b6Cjm-0007WJ-Mm for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 10:03:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44536 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b6Cjl-0005I8-It for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 04:03:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52274) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b6Cix-0005FE-Hl for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 04:02:28 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b6Cis-0007Bt-JV for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 04:02:26 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:49885) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b6Cis-0007BV-Gk for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 04:02:22 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3039 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1b6Ciq-00040F-Ee for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 04:02:20 -0400 In-reply-to: <20160527070959.GB27615@tuxteam.de> (tomas@tuxteam.de) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:110130 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 09:09:59 +0200 > From: > Cc: Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com>, > Whitfield Diffie , help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org > > is it (roughly) consensus here to "reply to all" instead of replying > to list? Either one is okay. > I happily handle both ways, but have been scolded elsewhere for not > (strictly) replying to list. Don't be averted by such requirements: they are generally incorrect (whoever subscribes to a list should be prepared to get two copies of messages for a discussion in which they posted). Unless the list has a written policy that everyone is required to follow, you are fine replying to all.