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

Re: Xsession doesn't use umask setting from /etc/login.defs

On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 09:41:45PM +0200, Tomas Fasth wrote:
> I have re-read your mail and I beg you for pardon. I was wrong.

Thanks.  My anger dissipates with a wave of the hand.  :)

> | And, by the way: X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me
> | on replies.
> I'm very sorry but I'm not perfect. My earlier reply did not cc:
> you. Could you please wait for it to happen a second time in the
> same thread before complaining? You seem a bit touchy about it.

It's one of my long-standing pet peeves.

> | Please get an MUA that respects Mail-Copies-To:.
> Thanks for the advice, but I prefer Firefox for the time being. I
> may try to persuade the Mozilla people to accept a patch. Can you
> give me a reference to a RFC-draft or something equivalent?

The best I can do is my usual boilerplate message, which has some
references at the bottom.

[The following is a form letter.]


You recently sent a message to a Debian Project mailing list to which I am
subscribed, and also included me in the To or CC header.

Please don't do this.  The Debian Mailing List Code of Conduct says:

  When using the Debian mailing lists, please follow these rules:

      * When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon
        copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be

(You can review the entire Debian Mailing List Code of Conduct at

Rationally interpreted, this of course includes anything that works
equivalently to a CC, such including the original poster in the To: or Bcc:
headers, forwarding the message to the original poster, or using the
"bounce" feature of some mailers to send the message again, but rewriting the
SMTP envelope to address the original poster instead of the list.

Some people feel that it is best to send email to everyone who might
possibly be interested in a message, indifferent to whom might be
subscribed to various mailing lists, be part of the expansion of various
mailing lists, be behind an SMTP exploder, and so forth -- in other words,
that it is the responsibility of the recipient of duplicate mail messages
to handle them.

The Debian Mailing List Code of Conduct does not endorse that philosophy.
There are proven limitations with using procmail rules to eliminate
duplicate message based on Message-ID, for instance.  More importantly, the
Debian Mailing List Code of Conduct expects the *senders* of mail to
exercise discretion and good judgement; it does not place the burden of
pruning unwanted copies of mail messages upon the recipient.  You can find
discussions of this aspect of the Mailing List Code of Conduct in the
Debian mailing lists themselves, if you are interested: please see
<URL:http://lists.debian.org/search.html> to perform a search.

The subject has come up several times over the past years, and time and
again, the existing policy has been affirmed as the wisest course of
action.  Many people, myself included, use the Mail-Followup-To and
Mail-Copies-To message headers, which are honored by mail user agents such
as Mutt to control the distribution of replies to mailing lists.   Using
such headers, a person can easily indicate that he does (or does not) want
to be sent copies of replies to his message.  You may want to use an MUA
that honors these headers, as they are in fairly wide usage on the Debian
mailing lists, and may help you avoid mistakes resulting in inadvertent
violations of Debian's Mailing List Code of Conduct.

You can read more about the Mail-Followup-To and Mail-Copies-To message
headers at:


Please note that no assertions of deliberate misconduct on your part are
intended by this message.  It is meant only to advise you as to how to
communicate more harmoniously with people involved with the Debian Project.

Thank you for your patience with this form letter, for your respect for the
Debian Project's mailing list conventions, and for your participation in

G. Branden Robinson                |    When we call others dogmatic, what
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    we really object to is their
branden@debian.org                 |    holding dogmas that are different
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    from our own.     -- Charles Issawi

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: