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.
Description: PGP signature