Ask HN: Why Not Reply All?

3 points by canterburry 1 year ago | 5 comments
Why isn't the default email reply behavior "reply all" vs just "reply to sender" as is the current convention?
  • thayne 1 year ago
    Depending on your email client, and possibly said client's configuration, it might be.

    That said, accidentally replying all with sensitive or embarrassing information is probably worse than accidentally sending a reply to one person instead of everyone, so it is a safer default, even if reply all is more common.

    • uberman 1 year ago
      Read about email storms and you will understand why https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_storm
      • cratermoon 1 year ago
        Do you want to the default to be "reply all"? If so, why? How would it improve email for you?
        • hsuhbdcstd 1 year ago
          Because the world is cruel . I am a big fan of reply all. I would like this to be a default option
          • talldayo 1 year ago
            It feels like a common trope among businesses of a certain size, when someone asks "Why does nobody read the emails?" without looking at the inbox from an engineer's perspective.

            My job is not to read emails. I don't open a Gmail window with 200 unread CC'd responses and think that it's my duty to untangle that. I work on what I'm paid to do and wait until I'm told otherwise by my manager. The reason every single email client doesn't default to reply-all is because engineers are conspiring together underground to stop the unjust suffering and PIPs caused by missing the needle in the email haystack. Company-wide emails are the single point-of-failure that necessitate alternative communication platforms like Slack.