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 21:44:16 +0300 Message-ID: <83pos7z6gv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4159df5c-3545-4c5a-829f-abc80f620813@default> <57473688.4020503@gmail.com> <20160527070959.GB27615@tuxteam.de> <83mvnc0vze.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1464374681 20426 80.91.229.3 (27 May 2016 18:44:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 18:44:41 +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 20:44:37 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 1b6MkO-0007WW-GB for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 20:44:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47381 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b6MkN-0000IO-Fc for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 14:44:35 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47413) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b6Mjz-0000IB-Pq for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 14:44:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b6Mjv-0004FX-KL for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 14:44:10 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:57692) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b6Mjv-0004Eb-Gz for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 14:44:07 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3586 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1b6Mjt-0006Lj-NP for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 14:44:06 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Glenn Morris on Fri, 27 May 2016 12:46:43 -0400) 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:110133 Archived-At: > From: Glenn Morris > Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:46:43 -0400 > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > >> is it (roughly) consensus here to "reply to all" instead of replying > >> to list? > > > > Either one is okay. > > I'm so sure that reply-to-all is correct that I thought it was > official policy for GNU lists. You may be right. I just don't think I've ever seen it written, but it could be that I missed something. > I don't understand why people think "recipient might get two copies" > is worse than "recipient might get no copies". Especially when the > former issue is trivially avoided by Mailman or MUA duplication suppression. I fully agree.