On 7/10/10 5:56 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 09:19:04PM -0700, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
>> My mail is now rejected by Rich Kulawiec on that basis. At least, that's
>> the header I got on the bounce from the last post you all saw.
>
> Actually, your mail is rejected here because you haven't got the basic
> courtesy to follow up to mailing list traffic on the list (only) or
> privately (only). It's rude and wasteful to send redundant copies,
> with some rare exceptions involving items that are important and/or
> time-critical.
Not getting into whatever discussion you have going with Tom, will you
be surprised if I said I disagree on this point?
Mail clients handle dups well, as do mailing lists. Two layers of
protection again the horrible double messages. What *most* mail clients
do not do is handle reply-to-list well (practical + non annoying). To
save on time, I hit reply-all (practical).
Also, I like to know when someone replies to my messages, rather than
wait until I have time to review list traffic (personal preference).
Thus, we all save on time, and the netiquette you quote is quite quaint,
dated to the 1980s. I have no problem if you follow it, but I personally
choose to hit reply-all automagically unless my client supports
reply-list (which it does for MailMan).
Gadi.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
