reply-to-all is probably the major cause of e-mail overload and congestion so I think that this is an excellent idea. It's basically a question of overall effe

reply-to-all is probably the major cause of e-mail overload and congestion so I think that this is an excellent idea. It's basically a question of overall effectivity, meaning that the time spent on reading non-important e-mails should be kept to a minimum. To play with some arbitrary numbers here's an example: I receive an e-mail sent out to everyone in my department consisting of 50 people, and hit reply all to make a pun, correct a spelling mistake, or some other trivial matter. It is easy to hit reply all, and thus I do it since I think my pun is the funniest thing since LOLcats. Now there are 50 people who have to read my e-mail, or at least deal with it. If they on average spend 30 seconds doing so that is half an hour of productivity that has been lost. If ten e-mails go back and forth using reply-to-all (someone else might have an even funnier joke, and since you set the tone they will also hit the reply-to-all button) that is 5 hours of productivity lost. If you really need to reply-to-all you can easily copy-paste the adresses. This will maybe take you two minutes, and will thus result in an overall fall in productivity of two minutes. A pretty stark contrast to the five hours...