[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: cc'ing (was Re: Mozilla goes GTK+ instead of Qt)



On Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 09:47:57PM +1100, Tyson Dowd wrote:
> >     TD> 2. Stops CCs which clutter lists and increase download times
> >     TD> (and yes, of course OTHER things can fix this -- for example
> >     TD> you could unsubscribe or filter).
> > 
> >   ...and here you argue that increased list traffic is bad.
> 
> No, I argue that duplicates are bad.  All information is good, but
> 2 copies of the same information is useless.  

With the sheer quantity of email in this and other lists, I prefer Ccs
myself because it allows me to easily read and reply to thee messages that
are of relevance to me directly more easily.

I have said and continue to say taht the easy way to do this is to tell your
MUA to add the simple header Mail-Followup-To:...  Any MUA that doesn't
honor this header is broken.


> Actually, you need a third reply-to which is "list reply" and you
> need to tell it the names of lists.  Mutt has this for instance.
> It auto-trims everything but list list address.

I seldom use this.  But it IS there.  I group reply and trim by hand anyone
who I notice has asked not to have Ccs if necessary, provided they haven't
set the headers properly.


> >   I personally have been bitten on several occasions by this. Not
> > always by forwarding deeply personal information to a larger than
> > intended audience, but by broadcasting mail that was not required to
> > be broadcast. In some cases, it's a question of list administrators
> > trying to boost their list volumes. From my perspective, protocol
> > purity dictates that Reply-To be left untouched.
> 
> In a perfect world yes.  But sometimes the tradeoff is acceptable.

I could give horror stories of this happening to other people...  =>

-- 
Show me the code or get out of my way.

Attachment: pgp4N5bmnpk3y.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: