Clint Adams wrote: > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 06:35:20PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: >> Wrong. You neglected to request to be CCed. > > My M-F-T was clearly a request to be Cc'd. Which possibly only goes to show how broken that header is. you could have noted the request to be CCed in the body of the mail (which is what I always do when posting to lists I'm not subscribed to). However, in this case I'll take the blame. I happen to read that list through a news reader and did not allow for M-F-T headers. I will make sure I do check for M-F-T in the future. My apologies. >> That's bullshit. The CoC has been in place and unchanged for years. >> Please > > Yes, and it has been controversial and WRONG for years. I agree it has been controversial. However, "wrong" is just your opinion. My opinion is that it is "right" for Debian's lists. > There have only been people trying to tell other people to do things that > make sense because other people are apparently too stubborn or inept to > use their software properly. Right, but that argument works both ways. You are obviously to stubborn and inept to use the "reply-to-list" function of your software. I personally use kmail [1], which unfortunately does not support setting M-F-T. However, it does a great job of recognizing list mail and correctly doing reply-to-list automatically. Cheers, FJP [1] Note that I did _not_ use kmail for the post to d-www. If I had, it would have respected the M-F-T header.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.