On 06 Aug 2005 16:48:38 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <frx@winstonsmith.info> wrote:
>
> > IIRC, the code of conduct says that the canonical way to ask to be
> > Cc:ed on replies is setting an appropriate Mail-Followup-To: field.
> > Asking the same in the message body (in natural language) is a
> > useful reminder for users of MUAs that do not automatically honour
> > the Mail-Followup-To: field.
> >
> > Am I correct?
>
> Not as far as I can tell. The code of conduct doesn't mention
> MFT.
I stand corrected.
Actually the code of conduct states:
| When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon
| copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be
| copied.
I cannot recall where I got the idea that the canonical way of
requesting to be Cc:ed is setting an appropriate Mail-Followup-To:
header... :-(
> I'm not surprised, because MFT is a controversial
> non-working invented header which failed to get standardised
> and is only supported by a few mailers.
Well, it seems to be very popular here...
I don't know if it really works, since Sylpheed (the MUA I use) does not
support it.
> Mention your CC wish
> in your sig if you feel strongly.
I'd rather avoid this, since I should use a different .signature for
each context (lists I'm subscribed to, lists I'm not subscribed to,
private e-mail comunications, ...)
And anyway, how can you remember who requested to be Cc:ed in a long
thread?
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpcd61N26Ixl.pgp
Description: PGP signature