Cc: to poster (was Re: OT: less v. more...)
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> On 02 Aug 2000, Bolan Meek <Bolan.Meek@wcom.com> wrote:
> > On topics arisen from this discussion,
> > Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > > ...BTW, please refrain from sending to _both_ the list and me,
> > > I read the list. ...
> > One may assume that those whose names one sees often
> > are subuscribed, but how to be sure, generally? I propose
> ...In general, on open lists you should assume
> one is reading the list s/he is posting to....
Ah, good, so, with this assumption, one ought to remove the
personal To:'s and Cc:'s, unless requested? (Like you did..)
> > a habit of including in the .sig a notice:
> > I'm on this list
> ...And how should I know what e.g. Ben had in his
> signature about being on the list or not? How should one know what your
> intention was to Cc: him? This might work for the first time, but not
> for the next replies (which, on a discussion-list are very likely).
Well, if his .sig was respected, he should no longer be in the
Cc: list, in the first place. But the point is taken about the
.sig not being worth much for this, as a convention. It also
occurs to me that some might not want to yield their .sig space
for this, in favor of whatever political/religious/humor message.
Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Gerfried" == Gerfried Fuchs <email@example.com> writes:
> Gerfried> I go another way: I included now a header that should
> Gerfried> be respected by most MUAs: Mail-CopiesTo: never
> The "mail-copies-to" header does sound good, but I have mixed feelings
> as to if it really solves the problems.
> Oh, BTW, Mail-CopiesTo: never is obsolete, use "nobody" instead. See
> Mostly coming from this:
> Gerfried> I think newcomers should rather be guided to _not_ Cc:
> Gerfried> one posting to a list than to rely on some obscure
> Gerfried> sentence in one's signature. The header I noticed is a
> Gerfried> proposed draft that is included in some MUAs, and will
> Gerfried> quite possibly be in by more in the future.
OK. So henceforth, my practice will be to remove personal Cc:s
> I would prefer another header (does the "followup-to" header do
> this??), that is like "reply-to:", except it works for group
> followups, rather then private replies. Even better, if it supported
> mailing lists *and* newsgroups... If the poster hasn't submitted one,
> the mailing list software could add a default one. If there is already
> a header, it shouldn't be replaced.
> Another-words, I think it should be up to the sender to specify
> exactly where the group reply should go. If the sender doesn't say,
> then the mailing list should be able to specify. This should happen
> without affecting private replies (so reply-to can't be used).
One problem I have, is that posts come to me From: the poster,
and my MUA doesn't respect the Resent-from: header, so if
I `Reply`, it goes only to the poster, but when I `Reply-all`, the
list is Cc:ed. I haven't noticed a Followup-to: header (but I
haven't sought them, either), so I don't know what my MUA
shall do with those.
I'm on the -user list.
firstname.lastname@example.org (home ph. on Q) http://www.koyote.com/users/bolan
RE: xmailtool http://www.koyote.com/users/bolan/xmailtool/index.html
RMS of Borg: "Resistance is futile; you shall be freed."