Re: Mailing list headers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Jason McCarty wrote:
>MJ Ray wrote:
>> Anthony DeRobertis <anthony@derobert.net> wrote:
>> > Debian list policy pretty clearly states not to cc the sender on list
>> > replies. [...]
>>
>> Then why bother setting a header no-one sees at all? My point is that the
>> M-F-T header is useless for conveying *whether or not* you want a cc and you
>> might as well put your preference in your sig too. Berating people saying
>> "look at some headers" is rather daft.
>
>Consider it a courtesy to users whose MUAs support M-F-T. Their
>group-reply command will send to the right addresses automatically,
>without them having to manually set To:/CC:.
>
>It's true that you shouldn't have to mention it at all, if you don't want
>to be CC'd. But some people don't know about the mailing list policy
>unless someone tells them.
>
>If you do want to be CC'd, I'd agree that you should mention it in your
>mail, as well as your M-F-T (if you use that). I would even put it in
>the body, rather than the sig.
Why do I get an extra burden? Can you not do the same? Why is it that
you shouldn't have to ask not to be CC'd and I have to ask every time I
email? You're putting an unfair burden on the "CC me all the time" camp,
as well as giving them vitriol when they do nothing more than follow the
Golden Rule. I would suggest that everyone that has issues with
extraneous CCs do exactly what I do when I fail to get CC'd: live with it
silently.
>Jason
>
>
>--
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-curiosa-request@lists.debian.org
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a
damn.
email galt@inconnu.isu.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQE+Nx+G+ZSKG3nWr3ARAgcaAJ0ZTy2oLGOiW92FRDp7EK+6+X6DRQCg58sj
A95La8jRy/sWSgIx3YlQB+4=
=tlvg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: