6 ms·

"Default reply to all" This isn't a feature. It's a bug.

jonknee 14y ago
Unless you need to always reply to all, then it's a handy feature. It's a setting to change the default, if you don't want it the good news is you don't have to do anything.
tomjen3 14y ago
You kidding? This will provide fun stories for years.
afterburner 14y ago
I see many mistaken "Reply"'s every month, and I think I've only seen one mistaken "Reply to all" in my life.
- modeless 14y ago
  You've never seen an email storm then? They're most often started by a mistaken "Reply all". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_storm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_storm
  - afterburner 14y ago
    I've read hilarious stories about them, but I've never been part of one. (Someone replied to all once at my old job when they shouldn't have. Then they said oops. End of boring story.)
  - pcl 14y ago
    In my experience, they've been caused by misconfigured listservs.
- wladimir 14y ago
  On the other hand, the potential damage of one mistaken "Reply to all" can be enormous, compared to a mistaken "Reply" which just adds some extra work.
  - afterburner 14y ago
    Usually true, but I've seen an errant "Reply" cause misunderstandings too (due to lack of communication rather than inappropriate communication). You're courting disaster anyways by replying off a mass email chain to one person on it.
R_Edward 14y ago
So is it a setting that affects only your own replies? Or is it something you set in an original email or reply that you're composing, that compels all recipients who click the reply button to reply to the entire addressee list by default? Because I can't see much use for the former, but the latter could be really useful.
- afterburner 14y ago
  The former, which is quite useful, when you keep mistakenly only replying to the previous respondent in a group email chain. When this becomes an issue is when you don't realize what you've done; then the person you replied to might not notice it. And then they might only reply to you since it's not longer a group email... and so on.
- anonymouz 14y ago
  I'm curious, how would you imagine the second one would even work? Add a new header that asks the mail reader to choose "reply to all" by default? It seems like something no reasonable mail reader should or would respect.
  - R_Edward 14y ago
    That's probably it: a simple boolean header. And I agree that changing default behavior is a very dodgy practice. I used to have an Outlook extension that disabled Reply-All on outgoing mail. I used the heck outta that thing! Nothing bugged me more than someone sending an e-mail broadcast to the division, which would be followed in my inbox by a dozen or more Out-of-office autoresponders.
Lost_BiomedE 14y ago
One thing I like about a default reply to all is that it is easier to take away names than add them, at least for me. I always look at the 'To:' field after hitting reply, but, I do realize many will not and make mistakes. Hard choice, IMO, convenience or user-proof.
snogglethorpe 14y ago
> This isn't a feature. It's a bug. Some stupid people would cause chaos if they enabled it, of course, but generally those are exactly the same people that would never even realize it was possible do so. For the rest of us who have half a clue, it's a nice feature. Reply-to-all is the right thing something like 70-80% of the time, so it's useful to make it easier.

Unless you need to always reply to all, then it's a handy feature. It's a setting to change the default, if you don't want it the good news is you don't have to do anything.

tomjen3 14y ago

You kidding? This will provide fun stories for years.

afterburner 14y ago

I see many mistaken "Reply"'s every month, and I think I've only seen one mistaken "Reply to all" in my life.

modeless 14y ago
You've never seen an email storm then? They're most often started by a mistaken "Reply all". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_storm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_storm
- afterburner 14y ago
  I've read hilarious stories about them, but I've never been part of one. (Someone replied to all once at my old job when they shouldn't have. Then they said oops. End of boring story.)
- pcl 14y ago
  In my experience, they've been caused by misconfigured listservs.
wladimir 14y ago
On the other hand, the potential damage of one mistaken "Reply to all" can be enormous, compared to a mistaken "Reply" which just adds some extra work.
- afterburner 14y ago
  Usually true, but I've seen an errant "Reply" cause misunderstandings too (due to lack of communication rather than inappropriate communication). You're courting disaster anyways by replying off a mass email chain to one person on it.

R_Edward 14y ago

So is it a setting that affects only your own replies? Or is it something you set in an original email or reply that you're composing, that compels all recipients who click the reply button to reply to the entire addressee list by default? Because I can't see much use for the former, but the latter could be really useful.

afterburner 14y ago
The former, which is quite useful, when you keep mistakenly only replying to the previous respondent in a group email chain. When this becomes an issue is when you don't realize what you've done; then the person you replied to might not notice it. And then they might only reply to you since it's not longer a group email... and so on.
anonymouz 14y ago
I'm curious, how would you imagine the second one would even work? Add a new header that asks the mail reader to choose "reply to all" by default? It seems like something no reasonable mail reader should or would respect.
- R_Edward 14y ago
  That's probably it: a simple boolean header. And I agree that changing default behavior is a very dodgy practice. I used to have an Outlook extension that disabled Reply-All on outgoing mail. I used the heck outta that thing! Nothing bugged me more than someone sending an e-mail broadcast to the division, which would be followed in my inbox by a dozen or more Out-of-office autoresponders.

Lost_BiomedE 14y ago

One thing I like about a default reply to all is that it is easier to take away names than add them, at least for me. I always look at the 'To:' field after hitting reply, but, I do realize many will not and make mistakes. Hard choice, IMO, convenience or user-proof.

snogglethorpe 14y ago

> This isn't a feature. It's a bug. Some stupid people would cause chaos if they enabled it, of course, but generally those are exactly the same people that would never even realize it was possible do so. For the rest of us who have half a clue, it's a nice feature. Reply-to-all is the right thing something like 70-80% of the time, so it's useful to make it easier.