storm in a teacup (was: pointless crap about CC-ing)
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 06:27:00PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> > 1) cross-posting is at least as controversial a practice as CC'ing,
>
> Less so, it can be useful. I completely fail to see the use of cc'ing
> people when they are already subscribed to the list.
it's a matter of personal preference. some people like getting CC-ed
because they regard messages To|Cc them as being higher priority than
other messages.
you're trying to elevate a mere preference to the status of a
right/wrong.
> > Having a partial knowledge of mail filtering introduces problems.
>
> No, it makes it obvious that it's a lot of effort to work around
> people who are simply to stubborn to stop cc'ing people.
no, the problem is that a lot of people use mailers that don't
understand the Mail-Followup-To header.
if they did, then this would be a non-issue. those who wanted CCs could
set the header to include their address, those who didn't could set it
to have replies go only to the list, and those who don't care could
leave it at whatever default their MUA uses.
in the long run, it's not that big a deal. it's about as annoying as
posts by people who don't use thread-capable MUAs....screws up the
threading for everyone else, but <yawn> it doesn't really matter.
personally, i don't care whether i get CC-ed or not. sometimes it's
useful because i see that reply sooner, sometimes it's not useful.
in either case it doesn't bother me at all. there are far more
irritating things that people do with email - e.g. html posts, moronic
outlook-style quoting, stupid 20-line corporate boilerplate disclaimers
appended by the MTA, and incoherent illiterate rants that don't even
have the decency to be amusing.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Reply to: