Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct
Shachar Shemesh <email@example.com> writes:
> Personally, I think the code of conduct should be amended, along with
> the list software.
While this shouldn't turn into a counting of popularity, I'd like to
register that there are people who think the list behaviour currently
(leave the Reply-To field untouched) is correct.
> So far, my research shows that the difference between people (like
> myself) who prefer to get the two copies and people who don't does not
> depend on level of technical knowledge, but specifics of method of
> reading the lists.
That sounds right.
> I am subscribed to lots and lots of mailing lists. All mail from those
> lists gets automatically delivered to dedicated folders automatically.
> This means I'm highly likely to miss a reply to my own emails to the
> list unless I get another, direct, copy (which doesn't have the list
> hidden headers, and therefor stays in my inbox). I *like* to get two
> copies, as it increases the chance that I actually get to see the
> replies to my own emails.
If you like to get two copies, why can't you arrange to generate the
extra copies you want without involving anyone else's configuration?
Conversely, I *don't* want any message to the forum to also be sent to
me individually via email.
In some cases that's because the individual message arrives first, is
often read first, yet is the one that I want to avoid receiving. No
filter can help with that, since it has no “other copy” to work with at
the time it's needed.
In other cases that's because I don't participate in the forum via email
at all, so I don't want to receive any messages in that forum via email.
> I understand and respect the fact that other people, due to using a
> mail client that does not allow filtering based on hidden headers,
> because they are only subscribed to a couple of mailing lists, or for
> whatever other reason, do not appreciate the extra copy. The problem
> is that I cannot tell them apart.
Why do you need to tell those classes of people apart? Why is being
unable to tell them apart a problem?
> Since the default for all non-mailing list communication should be
> "reply to all" (after all, if someone decided to CC a third party on a
> conversation they started with you, it's a bit impolite to cut said
> third party off from the reply)
I object to this idea quite strongly.
The “forgot to include someone” mistake you identify is easily rectified
after the message is sent; the “included someone whom I didn't intend”
is impossible to rectify after the fact. For that reason among others,
“reply to all” should not be the default but should be a deliberate
decision in each instance.
> The solution I propose is already implemented in mailing list software
> such as mailman. In it, there is a per-user settable flag called
> "avoid duplicates".
I'm not a “user” recognised by the mailing list servers of many of the
forums in which I participate, so your proposal is not a solution for my
case. I know I'm not the only one who participates in Debian (and other)
mailing lists as non-email forums.
\ “What is needed is not the will to believe but the will to find |
`\ out, which is the exact opposite.” —Bertrand Russell, _Free |
_o__) Thought and Official Propaganda_, 1928 |