From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Glenn Morris Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Reply to list [was: Different key maps in different dired buffers] Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:46:43 -0400 Message-ID: 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1464367639 5700 80.91.229.3 (27 May 2016 16:47:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 16:47:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 27 18:47:16 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 1b6Kuo-0006TB-Jn for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 18:47:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46961 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b6Kun-0002Uk-I5 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 12:47:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49575) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b6KuN-0002UQ-5X for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 12:46:47 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b6KuL-0005xK-9C for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 12:46:46 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:56396) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b6KuL-0005x9-6M for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 12:46:45 -0400 Original-Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1b6KuJ-0007AP-8L; Fri, 27 May 2016 12:46:43 -0400 X-Spook: Ciudad Juarez Honduras Communications infrastructure X-Ran: \xjf^x@u0Svh^%$o{Tpk:pm@UYXrW!cx4(S& (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 27 May 2016 11:02:29 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) 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:110132 Archived-At: 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. 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.