Re: [OFF-TOPIC] Mailing List Netiquette
Justin Gallardo wrote:
> Hey All,
> I am preparing a presentation to a group of students on mailing list
> netiquette(as you may have guessed by the subject), [...] I have thought
> of numerous things to bring up in the presentation including rules about
> top-posting(not doing it), tips to help keep the flow of conversation, and
> other various things.
It's not good enough to just say top posting is bad; bottom posting is bad
for some of the same reasons as top posting. Conversational quoting,
trimming out irrelevant material is ideal. This also goes a long way in
helping the thread flow smoothly.
http://wiki.ursine.ca/Best_Online_Quoting_Practices.
> When replying to an email, is it proper to leave the original poster in
> the To: line of the email, and the CC the list?
This is a dumb question, because it's been answered on the list before and
is part of the mailing list rules you're expected to know before you start
posting. Do not CC the original poster. They can read it on the list, on
gmane or in the archives if they want to see responses.
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
> Possibly it is acceptable to just do whatever Reply All in your client
> gives you(I would think the effect of this is configurable through the
> mailing list).
No, it's not. Well run mailing lists will not set the Reply-to: header,
users should use Reply to Mailing List, *not* Reply to All when replying to
list traffic. Users should not use mailing lists in email clients that
lack Reply to Mailing List (all mail readers in wide use designed this
decade have this function; if yours doesn't, it's time to join the rest of
us in the third millennium and switch to one that does).
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> I was curious if I could get other's input on this matter.
> Also, if you can think of any other good points to bring up during this
> talk, I would love to hear them.
RFC 1855 is a good outline to start with.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
Reply to: