Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Frank Lin PIAT <fpiat@klabs.be>]

On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 15:12 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Frank Lin PIAT <fpiat@klabs.be> writes:
> 
> > If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list:
> >   If I select "Reply":
> >     To=mailing-list
> >     CC=
> >   If I select "Reply to all":
> >     To=mailing-list
> >     CC=Previous email's recipient.
> >
> > If the sender of the previous mail was NOT subscribed to the list.
> >   If I select "Reply":
> >     To=sender,mailing-list
> >     CC=
> >   If I select "Reply to all":
> >     To=sender,mailing-list
> >     CC=Previous email's recipient.
> >
> > => Do you agree with this? Can we forward it to list-masters?

> Gnus has two reply functions, which it calls "reply" and "follow-up"
> using the old Usenet definitions.  [..]
> 
> Note the capacity for private reply.  Any system that doesn't allow for
> a private reply to the sender is unacceptably broken in my opinion.

The whole m-l / CoC problem comes from the assumption that all MUAs have
advanced features, that are properly configured, and end-user have good
understanding of what to do.

If we can't achieve a reasonable behavior using Joe User's
two-buttons-MUA, then it's guaranteed that this discussion will come
over again and again.

Note that at the moment, my MUA (Evolution) has three buttons. None
behave "correctly" for mailing lists:
Reply = Reply to sender only
Reply to all = reply to all previous sender and recipients
Reply to list = Reply to list only, dropping non-subscribed sender.

Any improved proposal ? or Do we have to change the policy?

Regards,

Franklin