Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
John Goerzen <email@example.com> writes:
> I am on dozens of mailing lists. There are thousands of participants on
> this list alone. I subscribe to, and leave, mailing lists all the time.
> Why should a person with a personal preference expect me to shoulder the
> burden of maintaining a mental list of that, when it's within his power
> to express his preference in a way that mail readers understand
On Debian lists the desire for no Ccs is not a personal preference but
it is the default. Only if you want a Cc you should say so. This is
what the CoC says. If you don't agree with that - change it. But
don't just ignore it.
Decent MUAs can be configured to send followups to the list only and
just Do The Right Thing.
> The same goes for the Debian CoC. I agree with Wouter on this. The CoC
> is at odds with the desires expressed in the mail headers.
In my view a missing mail header doesn't express any desire.
> Reply-To has been around since at least RFC822 (1982), and the person
> that wants to avoid personal CCs could use it. It is standard and it is
> widely supported.
There are people who distinguish between followups and replies. There
Reply-To is not a perfect solution either.
> There are, of course, problems with it. Mail-Followup-To is also a
> defacto standard (note that RFC is not the only way for a standard to
> occur; HTML, for instance, was a standard long before it got an RFC).
> Many mail clients do the right thing when they see it, and that is
> especially true here.
> If the person with the complaint had used this, he would have been
My MUA sets MFT but I still get a number of Ccs. Fact is that MFT is
not implemented in every MUA or is disabled by default.