Hi,
* David Champion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-11-02 22:51]:
>On 2001.11.02, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Will Yardley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> it's generally considered rude to send to both a list and to someone on
>> the list, so you should only do this if the person has specifically
>> indicated that they want to receive a cc.
>I don't think that's *generally* considered rude, either. I consider it
>an aspect of using e-mail in the contemporary environment. I suspect
>that most people expect this behavior.
I cannot see the connection. It can be both rude and expected. I
consider it rude if my mailbox is filled with utterly redundant
information which needs still time to deal with.
>> with other mutt users at least (are there any other MUAs that set
>> 'mail-followup-to' correctly??) if they're not 'subscribed' to a mailing
>> list, their 'mail-followup-to' will probably include both their address
>> and the list address, so <list-reply> will cc them automatically.
>This is the thing you can count on. I always group-reply in lists that
>I know have an open posting policy, because I cannot assume that the
>sender is on a list, and because there is a way (m-f-t) to indicate that
>you don't want a copy, and because my mailer respects that.
So it's my job to tell the world 'Please don't send me redundant
information'?
If the sender is for whatever reasons not on the list, it's his bad
luck. Why do you think it's appropriate to annoy list members only to
reach someone not interested enough to subscribe?
Thorsten
--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
