Re: cc'ing (was Re: Mozilla goes GTK+ instead of Qt)
On 03-Nov-1998, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> wrote:
> Hi
> >>"Tyson" == Tyson Dowd <trd@cs.mu.OZ.AU> writes:
>
>
> Tyson> Here's a tip: just because it is posted on the web doesn't make
> Tyson> it god's own truth.
>
> No, but the chances are that it is better than the half assed
> comments people make on usenet and mailing lists.
No better at all. It's not balanced in the slightest. For list
runners (as opposed to systems admins) it can often be better
to wear the problems to get the gain of improved list participation.
>
> Tyson> I have read this page before, and it still isn't convincing.
>
> That is your ptoblem, then.
>
> Tyson> - It doesn't cover the case of CCs (it carefully ignores
> Tyson> them, laughably claiming that group reply is good enough,
> Tyson> when clearly according to Debian policy it isn't good enough).
> Tyson> This is a serious issue for people who pay by the minute
> Tyson> or by the megabyte for their connect time, but is *always*
> Tyson> ignored by people who have flat rate or free connections.
>
> 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.
Not an option for many many people. (As discussed the other week
when talking about making the debian-users list available in ways other
than big downloads full of duplicates)
But duplicate suppression is a fairly small problem (but it is
mentioned in the Debian policies whioh is why it comes up).
Information falling off the list is a much bigger concern of mine.
Not large enough to merit changing the lists over, but big
enough to merit mentioning that reply-to is not utterly useless
like that web page purports.
>
> Tyson> - It tells list administrators that they can improve the
> Tyson> number of replies going to the list by changing their mail
> Tyson> readers. But it is not the list administrators that have the
> Tyson> half-assed mail readers -- it is the list users. Since they
> Tyson> will never read the web page, the suggestion that you should
> Tyson> use a decent mail reader is useless.
>
> 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.
But the list owner can set reply-to and increase replies -- just
like that. The alternative is "convince all list users to use new
mailreaders". There's a bit of a difference in effort involved in
those two. But that difference is not pointed out -- it is ignored
and you read on thinking that the problem is solved.
>
> Tyson> - It claims that it makes the "reply-to-author" break, but
> Tyson> this can avoided by changing the Reply-To header to the
> Tyson> From header. If it ever turns out to be a problem.
> Tyson> Of course you shouldn't be using Reply-To anyway, you should
> Tyson> just set "From:" properly. And if you can't set "From:"
> Tyson> you should fix your mailreader or firewall.
>
> 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.
Not according to RFC-822. You should set your from address to
a permanent address.
It can be useful to set the Reply-To to move a discussion from one
list to another. But since everyone group replies this won't work
anyway, it will just fork the discussion.
>
> Tyson> - The Principle Of Least Surprise is bogus, if the mail
> Tyson> came from the list, 'r' should reply to the list. Nothing
> Tyson> surprising there.
>
> 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.
I wrote the message. The message came from the list. If I wanted
to mail you directly I would have sent it to you.
> Tyson> - Setting Reply-To is called "munging" when the list admin
> Tyson> does it, but is called "setting" when the user does it.
> Tyson> Why the distinction?
>
> 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.,;
Not according to RFC-822.
Users can set From. Many people do anyway.
>
> 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).
"That is your ptoblem."
;-)
--
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Tyson Dowd <tyson@tyse.net> http://tyse.net
Reply to: