Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Frans Pop <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
Apologies in advance for lengthening this less-than-useful thread.
In this modern age of a mailman that lets subscribers configure their
subscription to avoid duplicates, and procmail filters that help do
the same at the client end (and some mail clients that have similar
abilities of their own - ie gmail)... why does this funny and akward
rule of debian lists persist?
Frankly, I want to just use reply/reply-all normally on any of the
many mailing lists I am sub'd to, and if a few people in the thread
are CC'd, I don't think it is a reasonable expectation that I have to
decide whether each one of them wants or not the CC.
A funny side-effect of this is that I've seen subscribers of debian
lists get in trouble in non debian lists because they use funny
headers in lists with differnt expectations
firstname.lastname@example.org -- School Server Architect
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first