Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal@jhu.edu> writes:

...
> If it's not obvious, I'm pretty strongly against Carl's roll-back.  I
> could, of course, just uncomment my old correction in my .emacs, but I
> think it's a change that could hurt users. Those who are more likely to
> prefer the reply-all behavior are more likely to be able to change the
> defaults. Those who aren't likely to change the defaults are more likely
> to be bitten, badly, by a default reply-all behavior.

I find the change to the new (only reply to sender) behaviour serously
irritating, because it seems I cannot train myself to hit R all the time
(which is pretty much what I always want).

On the other hand, I'm perfectly capable of customising this, but have
something of a fetish for at least trying to live with defaults for a
period, so it's my own fault for putting up with it.

So, even if I don't personally like it this way round, it is at least
fail-safe (well except for the fact that I keep failing to group-reply
and then wonder why nobody talks to me any more ;-)

Of course, if it turns out that the vast majority of actual users are
like me and would prefer to do r and then edit the To/Cc if it's
supposed to be private, then reverting the change would make sense.

Cheers, Phil.

P.S.  Oh ARSE! -- of course I just failed to hit R again! and so had to
do some more sodding about to actually get the list included in the To:

Actually, instead of either of these options, how about some way of
letting r do the single reply, and then once inside the reply, having
some key binding to add the rest of the recipients in the group, or flip
between the two options so one can change one's mind after typing up the
reply?
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]    http://www.hands.com/
|-|  HANDS.COM Ltd.                    http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(|  10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London  E18 1NE  ENGLAND