Re: cc'ing (was Re: Mozilla goes GTK+ instead of Qt)
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:21:19 +1100 (EST), Craig Sanders wrote:
> > thinks that reply-to is a good idea really shits me. cleaning up the
> > mess is a major headache. this happens with monotonous regularity,
> > especially when one or more subscribers are behind some brain-dead
> > NT mailer.
> And as I said before, fix the server, not break the list.
were you born that stupid or did it take years of effort and refinement?
a) adding a reply-to header would be breaking the list. not adding one is
leaving something that works alone.
b) i have no control over who subscribes to an open list (nor do i want to
review every subscription from every mailing list we host).
c) from b) it follows that i have no control over the server that the
subscriber is using. if it is broken there is nothing i can do about it.
all i can do is manage my own systems, and i do that by fixing any mailing
list which has a reply-to header set.
the rest of your crap barely deserves a reply.
> > i thought it was laughably lame criticism when he spammed me with it
> > yesterday (after i expressly told him that i did not wish to receive
> > a copy).
> Yet you haven't once gone and and refuted it point for point. The
> best you can muster is "it's lame."
as i told you, it was not worth the effort of "refuting". would you
bother refuting the gruntings of a retarded baboon? i certainly
> > mailbox because of his inability to understand the phrase "i do not
> > wish to correspond with you".
> Because you failed to understand that if you stopped replying I'd stop
> sending. I only replied.
you sent me your junk after i explicitly told you i did not want it and
that i did not wish to correspond with you. there isn't much difference
at all between that and spamming.
> Here's something to wrap your brain around. Who is sending the
> message? The list. What should the reply-to be set to, if
> anything? The list. Figure it out. If you want I can dig up
> that point for point rebuttal I made and forward it on.
> >no need. i suspect your rebuttal will be lame. all the attempts
> >i've seen so far have been. they are lame because they
> >fundamentally miss the point...even the most perfect logically
> >reasoned argument is lame if the premise it is based on is lame.
> Hardly. Here it is. Don't reply until you read and understand
> it. To me you're a clueness nit right about now who doesn't
> have the brains of a newt's fart. There is not nettiquette
> or techincal reason for the reply-to to not be set. Only the
> ill-mannered old farts who don't want to learn new things.
at this point i replied that you should fuck off and die - i have no
wish to correspond with rude and obnoxious jerks - but you persisted in
mailing me your junk. when i filtered you out, you started sending me
crap from other addresses. you only stopped when you figured out that i
was bouncing crap from any of your addresses back to all of them and the
more addresses you gave me, the more copies of your own junk you got.
and you have the fucking gall to whinge and moan about getting CCs that
you don't want. hypocrite!
What is so difficult for you to understand about the phrase: "I DO NOT WANT
TO CORRESPOND WITH YOU"?
DO NOT EMAIL ME. DO NOT REPLY TO ME.
> Also, let's not lose sight of what an individual reply-to gains the list.
> Nothing. Not a damned thing.
you still don't get it.
Reply-To is NOT there for any list. it is there for the user. it is
the only way a user has to redirect replies to the correct destination
> The individual can still get replies through the list. If he wants
> private mail to get through, then he should be using the working
> address and not the broken one.
this is not always possible.
why break something just because you're too stupid to learn how to use a
> Whether you like it or not, people do not responsibly cull CC lists.
there are other ways of dealing with that problem which do not involve
breaking things for 3rd parties.