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

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

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 07:56:42PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> 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.

I read the messages you linked.  They complained that it's not a standard
and asserted, without explanation, that it's better to do it in the body
of the message.  (Obviously, I didn't read the entire threads; like you,
I have limited time--and, for the present, decreasing motivation--to
devote to this topic.)

> 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.

I don't find setting headers hard.

> 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.

It's the other user that wants to be treated special, so it's their
job to make that happen.

> 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.

If you're not subscribed and don't want copies anyway, set your own MFT
header saying so, which would prevent the list from guessing otherwise.
If the user has set MFT explicitly, the list should probably not mess
with it.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: