[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reply to list [was: Different key maps in different dired buffers]
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Reply to list [was: Different key maps in different dired buffers] |
Date: |
Fri, 27 May 2016 21:44:16 +0300 |
> From: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
> 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.
- Re: Different key maps in different dired buffers, (continued)
- RE: Different key maps in different dired buffers, Drew Adams, 2016/05/26
- Re: Different key maps in different dired buffers, Whitfield Diffie, 2016/05/26
- RE: Different key maps in different dired buffers, Drew Adams, 2016/05/26
- Re: Different key maps in different dired buffers, Dmitry Alexandrov, 2016/05/26
- Re: Different key maps in different dired buffers, Whitfield Diffie, 2016/05/26
- RE: Different key maps in different dired buffers, Drew Adams, 2016/05/26
- Reply to list [was: Different key maps in different dired buffers], tomas, 2016/05/27
- Re: Reply to list [was: Different key maps in different dired buffers], Eli Zaretskii, 2016/05/27
- Re: Reply to list [was: Different key maps in different dired buffers], Glenn Morris, 2016/05/27
- Re: Reply to list [was: Different key maps in different dired buffers],
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Reply to list [was: Different key maps in different dired buffers], Whitfield Diffie, 2016/05/27