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

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

Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 09:35:36AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > 
> > Sorry, I still think you seem not to have
> > followed the references. There are reasons why
> > draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt wasn't accepted. I
> > will not present them again here, because we are already a bit
> > tangential. The bottom line is that MFT is not good enough.
> I read the messages at the links you provided.  They provided no insight
> into why you don't like MFT; your (rather insulting) assertion that I
> must not have read it doesn't change that. [...]

I continue to think that you have not read the DRUMS discussions.
No insult is meant, but you show no signs of having done so.

> > Cross-posting should be discouraged and harder than the default,
> > don't you think?
> No, cross-posting should not be made artificially difficult and harder
> to do correctly.  Don't make *me* spend extra time messing with headers
> every time I want to reply to someone else's cross-posted thread.

It's not much extra time messing with headers by pressing
a different reply key, compared with you expecting users of
most mail clients to do hard/impossible header manipulations.

> > In other words: you are wrong that it's my job to hint to your mailer,
> > if that means guessing how it implements which non-standard headers.
> 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.
> If you don't, and instead just say "CC me on replies" in the message,
> you're pushing the work to handle your exceptional case onto everyone else
> on the list, which is unacceptable.  That's why, as I said, I only comply
> with such requests once, to point people to MFT (at least, unless I really
> want to talk to that person).

Apply your expectations to yourself. Don't push the work to handle
your mail client's exceptional support for a non-standard buggy
header onto everyone who requests a CC. It's unacceptable.

> > Further, MFT exacerbates that accidental-cc problem.

I disagreed with your reading of this, but I'm not correcting it now.

> > What possible automated values would you set in MFT which
> > would include only mailing lists? The only ways I can see that
> > lists.debian.org could add your preferred MFT when none was sent
> > are to either build an index of all mailing list addresses or
> > to probe -request addresses. If it was only to include the list
> > forwarding the request, it would just be a List-Post duplicate.
> My original suggestion was that it include all addresses in the To: and Cc:
> headers, except for those which are subscribed to the list.
> That's imperfect, as I acknowledged from the beginning, but it does seem
> like an improvement.  (Of course, I suggested it with the hope that others
> might be able to refine it.)

I frequently post to lists that I am not subscribed to and don't
want a CC for. I either get the messages through a remailer or
another access method (NNTP, web archives later, and so on).
Your proposal does the wrong thing for anyone reading via
linux.* or gmane and probably many others, irrespective of the
usual MFT brokenness.

Hope that explains it,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: