On 7/29/05, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In other words, "All Rights Reserved"... :-(
I did say that I would be happy to give you advance permission to circulate a reasonable number of copies privately, which would leave me with no recourse against you unless you set out to misappropriate or grossly misrepresent my work or to defeat its "first publication". That's rather different from "all rights reserved", and it's the most open I know how to be without seriously compromising its status as an unpublished work still in draft. > P.S.: please do not reply to me directly, while Cc:ing the list, as I > didn't ask you to do so... since I'm a debian-legal subscriber, I'd > rather not receive messages twice! thanks I went back and checked the "code of conduct" and you are of course right that I am in error. It's too bad that the code of conduct plus the remailer configuration are inverted relative to the way that MUAs work. Adding a Followup-To: d-l is supposed to be a no-op by the code of conduct, and would make almost all MUAs do the right thing; but the remailer doesn't do it automatically. And even if I check the headers manually I'm not supposed to assume that a Reply-To: (real mail address) was intentional. So I'm supposed to strip the sender from the reply list no matter what Followup-To or Reply-To says, unless "I'm not subscribed, please copy me" is in the body of the message. I guess I'll do that henceforth, but it really feels broken. Cheers, - Michael
