[Users] Reply to All as default?

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:25:11 +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
>IM(admittedly limited)E, when people ask about "Reply to All" what most
>of them /really/ mean is "Reply to List".
>
>IMO, if there is a real need for "Reply to All", more than very
>occasionally, it's probably a good idea to think in terms of a mailing
>list.

Correct! Btw. "Reply" instead of "Reply to all" invoking a reply to a
mailing list only, when replying to an email with a mailing list
header, is theoretically the better approach. Sometimes you want
either reply to the mailing list only or to reply to the mailing list
as well as individual receivers. The reason for this could be either
open mailing lists, that don't require subscription or developer
lists, were a developer might be subscribed, but sometimes better
directly gets an email. However, due to different settings, especially
for mailman mailing lists, reply-to headers might be overwritten etc.,
so nowadays most, if not all other MUAs are in favour of a reasonable
compromise, to invoke replies to the mailing list by a reply to all.
In a perfect world the way it's done by Claws would make way more
sense, but in reality, the reasonable compromise to reply to all
unfortunately turned out to be the better choice.

It's already impossible to convince a lot of mailing list administrators
to use sane mailing list settings, so there's no need to ask less
experience subscribers to do the right thing, hence, unfortunately
"reply to all" nowadays is the better default to invoke replies to a
mailing list.

I'm in favour of proper mailing list settings and Claws' way, to invoke
a reply to a mailing list via the reply option, but I have given up.
The Claws developers should consider to invoke a mailing list reply via
the reply to all option, since this unfortunately would cause less
trouble nowadays.