Re: Q: List Policy
Chris Bannister <mockingbird@earthlight.co.nz>:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:30:04AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
> > makes this mistake, though. And I seem to remember a few posts where it
> > was brought up that some users who post are not subscribed. So, go
> > figure.
>
> Catch 22 -- if they are not subscribed they will not be able to read
> any .sig file asking to be cc'd if not subscribed. Also they will not
> rec any replies if not subscribed. :(
I'm not sure I understand that.
Tangentially, I notice the web interface to the archives
strips/doesn't add in the first place, the list .sig to posts archived
there. On the other hand, it explicitly splits the reply-to function
into reply-to-list, to poster-on-list, and to poster-off-list, which I
think is nice.
> It makes more sense to either not allow posting unless subscribed
> or have an open list but cc unless they explicitly request not be
> cc'd.
I'm not subscribed, and haven't been for years. I read the list in
the nntp "mail to news gateway" (cf. Usenet). Don't assume people are
only going to do it in the ways you know of. There may be/likely are
many other ways.
> Can anyone explain why the current policy is sane?
History. It makes sense if you know why the choices were made, a long
time ago, using much different software, and much different user
mores. With current (read "possibly compliant") software, it's a
shot in the dark, requiring much research to find software that either
works as it should or works as *it* thinks is best. I prefer the former.
Back on topic, I've been using the .sig below for years, and the
"Please don't Cc: me" has also been ignored for years.
Perhaps we need one of the listmasters to enforce the usage
guidelines? Post HTML or Cc: too often, and ...
Nah. Dumb idea.
Love your .sig, btw. :-)
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292
- - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.
Reply to: