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

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 02:45:47PM +0100, Sven Mueller wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote on 07/03/2006 01:05:
> > It is your job to set MFT if you want my mailer to treat you differently
> > than everyone else, such as if you want to receive CCs on list posts.
> Why? MFT isn't an accepted standard. It also isn't implemented in too
> many MUAs (mozilla/thunderbird just being one example) because it wasn't
> accepted as a standard. So why on earth should I manually set that
> header (and in the thunderbird case, I can't even do so without major
> patching and tweaking)?
> I don't say that the idea behind MFT is a bad idea (actually, many
> aspects of it _do_ make sense), but until it is accepted as a standard,
> it is (IMHO) stupid to ask people to tweak their MUAs to set and handle it.

It's the only automated way of expressing this preference.

I don't consider it my responsibility to *manually* adjust each of my
replies to suit the preferences of the person I'm replying to, which is
why I don't always honor requests to CC.  Instead, I let people know how
they can express their preference in a way that many people's mailers
will be able to handle automatically.  If they can't be bothered to
tweak a header to make their preference happen, then I sure can't, either.

> Why do you expect people to support a non-standard header? Actually you
> are even trying to force them so use it (even if you possibly don't do
> so intentionally). That's - again - stupid IMHO.

I'm not forcing them to do anything.  I'm saying: if you want my mailer
to treat you special, then say so in a way that allows it to be automated.
If they won't spend the one-time cost of setting up a header to make
their own preference happen, then they can't seriously expect *everyone
else* to spend an *every-reply* cost of doing so.

> > (Of course, I have no problem with doing both--setting the header and
> > asking for it in English for those whose mailers don't support it.)
> So you expect people to set it, even if their mailers don't support it,
> but you accept that you might need to ask for your prefered handling of
> replies explicitly because their mailers don't support it? Talk about
> inconsistencies ;-)

No, there's no inconsistency.  I know many mailers don't support it, and
I don't see a problem with noting one's preferences in the body of the
mail for the sake of informing people who use those mailers.  Doing so
doesn't make the MFT header any less effective for me.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: