Replying to list messages (was: Unexpected scientific notation)

[Ben Finney]

Paul McNett <p at ulmcnett.com> writes:

> [Some day hopefully I'll remember to change the to: address to
> python-list at python.org instead of the original sender.

Even better: Take full advantage of the standards-compliant messages
from the list, by using the “Reply to list” function of your RFC
2369 compliant mail program. That way the message is sent to the
declared list posting address, without you having to change anything.

If your mail program still doesn't have such a function, over a decade
since RFC 2369 was written, lobby the vendor to add it. Or, in the
case of free software, act some way yourself (write code, pay someone
else to do so, or some other action) to have that function added for
everyone.

For Thunderbird (which I see you're using, Paul), the open bug report
is <URL:https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45715>.
Meanwhile, you can install an add-on to provide the function
<URL:http://www.juergen-ernst.de/addons/replytolist.html>.

> I always end up sending the first reply to the sender, then going
> "oops, forgot to hit reply-all'", and sending another copy to the
> list.]

At least that's merely a minor inconvenience; easily rectified by
just sending the message again using the correct function.

That's much better, of course, than the opposite situation which
exists on some misconfigured mailing lists: that a message sent using
the “Reply to sender” function, with content written in the
knowledge that only the original message's sender should be reading
it, instead ends up going to the mailing list. That damage can't be
undone.

Thanks to the Python mailing list administrators for conforming to the
standards and not breaking the configuration like that!

-- 
 \         “[T]he question of whether machines can think … is about as |
  `\         relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim.” |
_o__)                                              —Edsger W. Dijkstra |
Ben Finney