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

Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists

John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> 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
> automatically?

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
> fine.

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.


Reply to: