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

Re: Q: List Policy



On Sat, 22 Nov 2008, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Chris Bannister wrote:
> > Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the
> > point in not CCing on a closed list.
> 
>     For the same reasons.  Whether the list is open or closed is irrelevant to
> the harm that CCing people unbidden causes.  A list being open or closed is
> also irrelevant to the fact that it is incumbent on the sender to ensure they
> receive replies, capable of finding replies or requesting copies if they
> cannot fulfill the previous two trivial tasks.

Actually, to be very blunt: CCing people is absolutely the only way to deal
with massive ammounts of email and very-high-traffic lists when you *care*
about not ignoring email that you should have read.

If you want an example of a CC policy radically different from Debian's,
take a look at the development mailinglists for the Linux kernel and all
related projects.  There, the policy is that you are to *always* CC everyone
that should (or might even remotely need to) get an email, in addition to
sending it to the lists.  Otherwise, the chances that such an email will be
lost in the ocean of stuff, or never reach the right people.

IMO the truth behind the CC policy in Debian lists is that it is the policy
not to do so for a LONG time now, and a lot of people is bothered by CCs, so
they resist any such changes (note: I am NOT judging whether they're right
or wrong for doing that, if one could even classify such an issue in that
way).  IMO, the reason many people are bothered by the CCs is that the
typical DM, DD and Debian user just plain don't *care* about stuff from
debian-user/-policy/-private/* bothering him all the time.  He'd rather
ignore it completely until he decides to read that ML folder, if ever.

Which is why we *DO* CC people directly every time it is clearly their
problem/fault/responsibility.  We have entire systems to make sure people
can ask automated tools to add them to such "cc's", even.  But that
certainly doesn't cover untargeted ML posts and replies to them.

In the end, it boils down to the fact that most people have lame mail
filtering setups that cannot sort delivery mailboxes in the right priority
and do proper destination-based duplicate supression (so that you can get
automated "if it is also destined to a Debian ML, file into the ML folder,
and have any further duplicates supressed), and are not in any hurry to
deploy one.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


Reply to: