David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 05:18 +0800, W B Hacker wrote: > >>Usually only those who 'CC:' everyone they reply to, thereby doubling >>the traffic. > > > Which I believe is actually how I ended up in your blacklist too, rather > than sender verification failures.
Correct. I sent you a who-struck-John note on that off-list, but it dd not get through. Logs showed greylisting. Not asking to change that on my account, but the old silently try-for-days is not apppropriate to modern business users. They need to know within *minutes* if the mail was not delivered so they can fall-back to phone or fax. > > Opinions are divided on that topic, and I'm firmly in the _other_ camp. > If you're posting a response to something I've said, then I consider it > extremely impolite to drop my address from Cc. > I see the merit in each, and don't have a strong 'opinion' either way. The two problesm it creates for me are storage-waste over time and the inability to distinguish between off-list and on-list incoming *unless* the 'Subject:' header has '[exim]' removed, at which point it will both be obvious and in diferent folders. > I subscribe to many mailing lists, and I don't pay _that_ much attention > to all of them, all of the time. If I am participating in a thread, I > really do want the responses landing in my inbox where I'll see them, > rather than in a mailing list folder which I don't see for days or weeks > at a time. > Understood. > Although I happen to be subscribed to the list on which I occasionally > communicate with _you_, I also participate in many other mailing lists > from time to time, without subscribing to each. The problem of list > replies not landing in my inbox is even worse in that situation, because > I don't receive them at _all_. > Agreed. Many lists just have too high a traffic rate to comfortably remain susbscribed to. > The failure mode if you fail to Cc me is that you will cut me out of the > conversation -- I may not see your response at all, or not until it's > too late to sensibly respond. On the other hand, the failure mode if you > _do_ Cc someone who didn't really want it is that they see a second copy > of the email. I consider one of those to be more of a 'failure' than the > other. IF I could remember to CC: certain key folks, there might be a solution. But I figure the list is archived quite nicely, [1] so er the other direction. FWIW, my practice of *locally* archiving is primarily to allow me to apply broader searches with tools I am more accustomed to. > > Obviously it's unrealistic to expect that people will know the desires > of their correspondent and Cc accordingly. A solution like > Mail-Followup-To: would be nice but doesn't seem to be widespread enough > to be particularly useful. So I default to Ccing you, and I'm afraid I > don't really make any apology for it. > None expected. I'm sure we'll all get along well enough. As to the blocking - I'll see if I can do that a bit more intelligently - perhaps in the MUA. The only tool I am *certain* could handle it would be to re-subscribe with an Ecartis list address, which I can do easily enough. On 'incoming' from Exim, the 'no duplicates' should handle your CC:, giving me just one. On outgoing, I could, over time, add, for example both exim and your address, with a filter that only sent posts to you IF you appeared in a prior header. ISTR seeing headers that indicate at least a few folks here do something like that already. Best, Bill -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
