Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 09:35:36AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > > > Sorry, I still think you seem not to have > > followed the references. There are reasons why > > draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt wasn't accepted. I > > will not present them again here, because we are already a bit > > tangential. The bottom line is that MFT is not good enough. > > I read the messages at the links you provided. They provided no insight > into why you don't like MFT; your (rather insulting) assertion that I > must not have read it doesn't change that. [...]
I continue to think that you have not read the DRUMS discussions. No insult is meant, but you show no signs of having done so. > > Cross-posting should be discouraged and harder than the default, > > don't you think? > > No, cross-posting should not be made artificially difficult and harder > to do correctly. Don't make *me* spend extra time messing with headers > every time I want to reply to someone else's cross-posted thread. It's not much extra time messing with headers by pressing a different reply key, compared with you expecting users of most mail clients to do hard/impossible header manipulations. > > In other words: you are wrong that it's my job to hint to your mailer, > > if that means guessing how it implements which non-standard headers. > > It is your job to set MFT if you want my mailer to treat you differently > than everyone else, such as if you want to receive CCs on list posts. > If you don't, and instead just say "CC me on replies" in the message, > you're pushing the work to handle your exceptional case onto everyone else > on the list, which is unacceptable. That's why, as I said, I only comply > with such requests once, to point people to MFT (at least, unless I really > want to talk to that person). Apply your expectations to yourself. Don't push the work to handle your mail client's exceptional support for a non-standard buggy header onto everyone who requests a CC. It's unacceptable. > > Further, MFT exacerbates that accidental-cc problem. I disagreed with your reading of this, but I'm not correcting it now. > > What possible automated values would you set in MFT which > > would include only mailing lists? The only ways I can see that > > lists.debian.org could add your preferred MFT when none was sent > > are to either build an index of all mailing list addresses or > > to probe -request addresses. If it was only to include the list > > forwarding the request, it would just be a List-Post duplicate. > > My original suggestion was that it include all addresses in the To: and Cc: > headers, except for those which are subscribed to the list. > > That's imperfect, as I acknowledged from the beginning, but it does seem > like an improvement. (Of course, I suggested it with the hope that others > might be able to refine it.) I frequently post to lists that I am not subscribed to and don't want a CC for. I either get the messages through a remailer or another access method (NNTP, web archives later, and so on). Your proposal does the wrong thing for anyone reading via linux.* or gmane and probably many others, irrespective of the usual MFT brokenness. Hope that explains it, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
