Date   : Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:00:19 +0000
From   : pete@... (Pete Turnbull)
Subject: Who the message is from...

On 08/11/2009 01:50, Kevin Bracey wrote:
> Rick Murray wrote:

 >> Now, for another point of view. Technical issues and header lines
 >> aside, the *LOGICAL* behaviour is to click REPLY to REPLY TO THE
 >> MAILING LIST.

> So what is it logical for "Reply to All" to do if "Reply" is replying to 
> the list? As I've got two buttons, "Reply" and "Reply to All", I expect 
> a "reply" to go to the sender, and "reply to all" to go to everyone who 
> received the message.

Firstly, the "sender" in this case is the list software.

Then, I'm bound to ask what you think "reply to all" should do in the 
case of an ordinary message with precisely one sender and one recipient.

The fact that a "Reply to all" exists doesn't mean it's what must be 
used for mailing lists.  It's for the case where there are cc'd 
addresses.  The typical use is in a *non-mailing-list* email, sent from 
X to Y and cc'd to  Z.  Y (or Z) may wish to "reply" to X, or to "reply 
to all", meaning X and Z (or X and Y).

Even in the case of a mailing list there are instances where a message 
to the list may be legitimately cc'd to another party, and a reply may 
directed to all parties, not just the list.  It happens frequently on 
business and management lists.  In another scenario, maybe the author's 
not on the list, but a moderator let the mail pass anyway.  These are 
cases where "Reply to all" does do something extra compared to mere "reply".


-- 
Pete                                           Peter Turnbull
                                               Network Manager
                                               University of York