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

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s



On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:23:33 +0200
Frank Lin PIAT <fpiat@klabs.be> wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 14:48 +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > Dne Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:39:15 +0100
> > Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org> napsal(a):

> > >   * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, meaning that
> > > by default my email client wants to send replies to individual
> > > posters. To get the mailing list included in the reply means that
> > > I have to reply to all. It's a very easy mistake to make, not to
> > > remember to manually shuffle these addresses around each time I
> > > want to send a follow up. Don't make me think!
> > 
> > See http://wiki.mutt.org/?MuttLists, part Lists' "technical". (Most
> > email clients do have this feature, Mutt was chosen because of
> > User-Agent field in your email.)
> 
> This thread will come over again and again until:
> 
> 1. Debian stops getting new contributors (that haven't configured
> their MUA properly "yet")
> 2. Debian mailing-list sends appropriate "hints" so MUAs behave in
>    conformance with the m-l policy.
> 3. Debian mailing-lists' policy is changes.
> 4. The following MUA are fixed to behave "properly" when a user
>    press "reply":
> 
> grep -hE '^(User-Agent:|X-Mailer)' lists/*  | sed -e 's/^[^:]*:\s*//'
> \ | sed -e 's,[ /].*,,' -e 's,(.*,,' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n -k 1


>     343 Claws
>     329 Sylpheed

Claws usually does this correctly, I think the exception is when the
direct reply is the one you respond to.

> 
> /me uses Debian's default MUA
> /me tries hard to avoid CC'ing sender.
> /me sometimes fails to remove CC'd people.

/me had to use 'L' on Debians default MUA for the reply-to-list.
kk

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Franklin


-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian user / gNewSense contributor
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: