Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct
On 13/03/11 08:19, Ben Finney wrote:
Never mentioned Reply-To, don't think Reply-To munging is correct, and
don't understand why you brought it up. When talking about change to the
list software, I was referring to the "Avoid duplicates" option,
Shachar Shemesh<email@example.com> writes:
Personally, I think the code of conduct should be amended, along with
the list software.
While this shouldn't turn into a counting of popularity, I'd like to
register that there are people who think the list behaviour currently
(leave the Reply-To field untouched) is correct.
I am subscribed to lots and lots of mailing lists. All mail from those
lists gets automatically delivered to dedicated folders automatically.
This means I'm highly likely to miss a reply to my own emails to the
list unless I get another, direct, copy (which doesn't have the list
hidden headers, and therefor stays in my inbox). I *like* to get two
copies, as it increases the chance that I actually get to see the
replies to my own emails.
If you like to get two copies, why can't you arrange to generate the
extra copies you want without involving anyone else's configuration?
Any suggestions on how to do it?
I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I will point out that
disregarding unwanted messages is easier to do with filters than
generating new ones (and, more importantly, automatically figuring out
for which messages duplicates should be generated).
Conversely, I *don't* want any message to the forum to also be sent to
me individually via email.
In some cases that's because the individual message arrives first, is
often read first, yet is the one that I want to avoid receiving. No
filter can help with that, since it has no “other copy” to work with at
the time it's needed.
In other cases that's because I don't participate in the forum via email
at all, so I don't want to receive any messages in that forum via email.
As an example - the list charter clearly states that if someone
indicates they wish to receive a copy you should CC him. I do not think
I could have more clearly indicated my wish to do so than in my previous
email, and yet you didn't. The reason I need to tell those apart from
those is because that's what the list's charter says I should do. This
is impossible to follow, and therefor should be amended.
I understand and respect the fact that other people, due to using a
mail client that does not allow filtering based on hidden headers,
because they are only subscribed to a couple of mailing lists, or for
whatever other reason, do not appreciate the extra copy. The problem
is that I cannot tell them apart.
Why do you need to tell those classes of people apart? Why is being
unable to tell them apart a problem?
I totally accept that argument in the context of automatically adding
"reply to" to lists, but not as a code of conduct for email at large.
This is why I specifically said "non-mailing list communication".
Since the default for all non-mailing list communication should be
"reply to all" (after all, if someone decided to CC a third party on a
conversation they started with you, it's a bit impolite to cut said
third party off from the reply)
I object to this idea quite strongly.
The “forgot to include someone” mistake you identify is easily rectified
after the message is sent; the “included someone whom I didn't intend”
is impossible to rectify after the fact. For that reason among others,
“reply to all” should not be the default but should be a deliberate
decision in each instance.
If I wrote you an email, and thought it necessary to CC someone, then
this discussion is obviously part of a discussion said someone need to
be aware of. It would be impolite of you to exclude him from your answer
unless there is a good reason to do so. In other words, the default (not
the software's default - your default as a human) should be to reply to
all. There is a growing trend to make hitting reply to all illegitimate
under any and all circumstances, which I think is in error.
But I believe that this is also something that can be resolved using
technical means. I think the current policy is unnecessarily complex if
followed, and in practice is not followed at all, leading to sub-optimal
The solution I propose is already implemented in mailing list software
such as mailman. In it, there is a per-user settable flag called
I'm not a “user” recognised by the mailing list servers of many of the
forums in which I participate, so your proposal is not a solution for my
case. I know I'm not the only one who participates in Debian (and other)
mailing lists as non-email forums.
Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd.