Re: Mailing list headers [Was Re: ssh vs telnet - which is faster?]
the guy is too picky, if somene asks for help they should take it in any
form it comes in, getting 1 or 2 extra mails is not a big deal, sometimes
i get 20 mails about 1 thing, takes just an extra minute of time to filter
and delete the duplicates.
if i replied to a message like that I would go out of my way to
CC: because those CAPS are more annoying then any cc:.
my 0.01
nate
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Kenneth Stephen wrote:
pgmr >On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Steve Lamb wrote:
pgmr >
pgmr >> Friday, December 10, 1999, 4:04:47 AM, RAVIKANT wrote:
pgmr >> > * DO NOT BOTHER CC-ING THE MAIL REPLY , BECAUSE I AM ALREADY SUBSCRIBED TO
pgmr >> > ALL THE LISTS - ILUGC , LINUX-INDIA , LINUX-NEWBIE , DEBIAN-USER *
pgmr >>
pgmr >> Might I suggest having them set reply-tos like all proper lists so people
pgmr >> don't have to munge headers to get to the right list or get bounces from lists
pgmr >> they are not subscribed to?
pgmr >>
pgmr >Steve,
pgmr >
pgmr > I think that this is a bad suggestion since there are some people
pgmr >(such as me) who use the Reply-To headers to ensure that the recipients
pgmr >have a valid reply address to reply to us. If the mailing list rewrites
pgmr >the Reply-To by putting itself in that header, then the valid reply
pgmr >address is lost.
pgmr >
pgmr > Furthermore, I think that the original problem of getting two
pgmr >copies of the same mail can be solved easily by using procmail.
pgmr >
pgmr >Regards,
pgmr >Kenneth
pgmr >
pgmr >
pgmr >--
pgmr >Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
pgmr >
----------------------------------------[mailto:aphro@aphroland.org ]--
Vice President Network Operations http://www.firetrail.com/
Firetrail Internet Services Limited http://www.aphroland.org/
Everett, WA 425-348-7336 http://www.linuxpowered.net/
Powered By: http://comedy.aphroland.org/
Debian 2.1 Linux 2.0.36 SMP http://yahoo.aphroland.org/
-----------------------------------------[mailto:aphro@netquest.net ]--
7:11am up 112 days, 18:56, 2 users, load average: 1.53, 1.66, 1.70
Reply to: