Re: cc'ing (was Re: Mozilla goes GTK+ instead of Qt)
On 03 Nov 1998 00:04:12 -600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Tyson> I have read this page before, and it still isn't convincing.
> That is your ptoblem, then.
Or the problem of the person quoting it for falling for such tripe.
> Filter on the ISP. Get duplicate suppression on. If you can
> subscribe to the debian mailing lists, then you have already
> committed to a major download.
Gee, Manoj, can I direct you to the uproar that people got in when I made
the very same suggestion when people said there was too much mail on the list
and they wanted alternate ways of viewing it? It is in the archives, back
about a week and a half.
> This is stupid. The page is meant to be read by the user
> too. getting a better MUA benefits everyone. And, in this particular
> case, the list users can consider themselves told.
Right. The page's author uses elm. He should really get a better MUA
which handles reply-to better.
> This is quite wrong. From shows where the mail is coming from,
> and reply-to is where I want replies to go to The from address maybe
> temporary, or may need to be set for internal security.
And if one has an address where they can get mail unobstructed what is
preventing them from readin mail from that address in the first place?
> Rubbish. The mail message came from you. I certainly
> distinguish between mail messages from different people.If I want to
> reply to the author, I hit r. The author is not the list.
The mail came from the list. The list was the last point of contact.
Most people want to reply to the list, not the individual.
> Because the field is one that the user has control over. When
> the users sets it it is their right. When the lsit admins set it they
> are stomping over an are the user should have control over.,;
The user does have control, they don't have to subscribe to the list.
But when they do they no longer control it. The last point of contact does,
the list.
> Tyson> Basically, the article is not a solid argument, it is a bunch of
> Tyson> justifications for an opinion that masquerades as an argument.
> This, of course, is you opinion (that means your arguments
> have not convinced me yet).
You never will be because you don't see getting dozens of CCs against
list policy as a "problem." Hell, one guy in a private conversation had the
gall to tell me that if I didn't want CCs I should say so in my sig since
most people honor it. I shouldn't have to do that, or set up dupe detection
at my ISP (which, BTW, is *MY MACHINE*, the damage is already done) since
they should not be sending it in the first place.
Now, which is more likely to happen, someone group-replying and not
trimming CCs or someone who is using a broken configuration, trying to patch
it with a reply-to and *MAYBE* getting a private reply from the list?
Hint: A quick guess of mail that I recieve from the debian-* lists places
the former at about 40%.
> ;-)
Also Tyson, in a private email, came up with a novel approach. Let the
subscriber decide whether or not he wants a reply-to set. Of course, if I
were that person I'd be annoyed to all hell that people are still CCing when
they should not, but at least I would no longer have to cull CCs from a group
reply because some other schmuck is using a broken mailer.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reply to: