Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 11:39:51AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So I really wonder why mailing lists are so common. It sort of depends on what you're looking for. Some advantages of mailing lists: * E-mail generally has a wider reach -- it gets past corporate firewalls, (my company has never allowed external nntp connections), works even on strange systems, etc. Point. Then again, if your corporate sysadmins don't want you reading news, they probably don't want you reading mailinglists, either. * With email, you can use the same MUA you always use, with the features you're used to. People are _used_ to email, know how to configure it. OTOH, many MUA's (including Thunderbird, mutt with some patches, pine, Mozilla Mail, MS Outlook Express, and of course gnus (which is more of a news client than a mail client)) can read news just fine[1], with an interface that is almost the same as the mail interface. Outlook Express, which does not support threading in the mail interface, will suddenly support threading for NNTP, too. Sorry for the very late reply, but wanted to clarify this: OE does support threading for Email, it is simply disabled by default. However overall the threading is more accuracte an reliable for newsgroups. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
Joe Smith wrote: OE does support threading for Email, it is simply disabled by default. However overall the threading is more accuracte an reliable for newsgroups. Until this MUA is released under a free license and ported to the GNU system so it can be packaged, this crucial detail is out of interest for the most of the list subscribers, I guess. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 11:39:51AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So I really wonder why mailing lists are so common. It sort of depends on what you're looking for. Some advantages of mailing lists: * E-mail generally has a wider reach -- it gets past corporate firewalls, (my company has never allowed external nntp connections), works even on strange systems, etc. Point. Then again, if your corporate sysadmins don't want you reading news, they probably don't want you reading mailinglists, either. * With email, you can use the same MUA you always use, with the features you're used to. People are _used_ to email, know how to configure it. OTOH, many MUA's (including Thunderbird, mutt with some patches, pine, Mozilla Mail, MS Outlook Express, and of course gnus (which is more of a news client than a mail client)) can read news just fine[1], with an interface that is almost the same as the mail interface. Outlook Express, which does not support threading in the mail interface, will suddenly support threading for NNTP, too. [1] just fine has to be taken with a grain of salt in the context of Outlook Express, obviously -- it doesn't do anything just fine. * With a mailing list you get a private copy of every message, without having to figure out how to setup a nntp server. OTOH, most news clients can be configured to store articles locally in the absense of a local nntp server; additionally, Debian includes leafnode, a news server that requires almost no configuration and that stores news on your local machine. Personally, I run leafnode on my laptop. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 01:47:59PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 11:39:51AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: * E-mail generally has a wider reach -- it gets past corporate firewalls, (my company has never allowed external nntp connections), works even on strange systems, etc. Point. Then again, if your corporate sysadmins don't want you reading news, they probably don't want you reading mailinglists, either. It depends what they want to do: for example, one common policy is that clients don't directly access the internet, using proxies and internal servers for everything. That needn't have any particular restriction on content transferred associated with it. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
* Matthias Julius wrote: [Mail vs. News] * A mailing list is easier to distribute with a slow server/connection. If a mail takes 3 minutes to show up in your mailbox it doesn't matter. If each news post takes 15 seconds to load it gets annoying. Programs like slrnpull and leafnode which supports offline reading exist since years. Norbert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
Norbert Tretkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Matthias Julius wrote: [Mail vs. News] * A mailing list is easier to distribute with a slow server/connection. If a mail takes 3 minutes to show up in your mailbox it doesn't matter. If each news post takes 15 seconds to load it gets annoying. Programs like slrnpull and leafnode which supports offline reading exist since years. Yes, but this doesn't mean everybody is using them. And they require extra setup for each user. Not everybody wants to be bothered with that. Does anybody have an idea how much difference there would be in server load for a NNTP server compared to the current Debian mailing list setup? Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * E-mail generally has a wider reach -- it gets past corporate firewalls, (my company has never allowed external nntp connections), works even on strange systems, etc. Point. Then again, if your corporate sysadmins don't want you reading news, they probably don't want you reading mailinglists, either. Most people don't really care what the corporate sysadmins _want_, they care about what the sysadmins _enforce_. Because there are many common corporate uses of email and mailing lists, email tends to get through by default. Nttp traffic doesn't. -Miles -- Americans are broad-minded people. They'll accept the fact that a person can be an alcoholic, a dope fiend, a wife beater, and even a newspaperman, but if a man doesn't drive, there is something wrong with him. -- Art Buchwald -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So I really wonder why mailing lists are so common. It sort of depends on what you're looking for. Some advantages of mailing lists: * E-mail generally has a wider reach -- it gets past corporate firewalls, (my company has never allowed external nntp connections), works even on strange systems, etc. * With email, you can use the same MUA you always use, with the features you're used to. People are _used_ to email, know how to configure it. * With a mailing list you get a private copy of every message, without having to figure out how to setup a nntp server. * A mailing list is easier to distribute with a slow server/connection. If a mail takes 3 minutes to show up in your mailbox it doesn't matter. If each news post takes 15 seconds to load it gets annoying. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So I really wonder why mailing lists are so common. It sort of depends on what you're looking for. Some advantages of mailing lists: * E-mail generally has a wider reach -- it gets past corporate firewalls, (my company has never allowed external nntp connections), works even on strange systems, etc. * With email, you can use the same MUA you always use, with the features you're used to. People are _used_ to email, know how to configure it. * With a mailing list you get a private copy of every message, without having to figure out how to setup a nntp server. I generally use gmane to read occasional lists which I don't care so much about. However lists I read (and write to) often, I get as email. -Miles -- Freedom's just another word, for nothing left to lose --Janis Joplin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No problem at all. Especially with gmane.org around. I used to subscribe to dozens of mailing lists, but now I can just browse all of them as newsgroups. I agree, I use Gmane for the same reason. There are many problems with mailing lists. If email was intended to be threaded, a message ID would be manditory. It is actually optional. Email was designed for unidirectional or recipricating (back and forth replying to the last message) messages, not threaded conversation. This is why few UA's can handle threading well, and even the best UA will have problems with some messages. Email was also definately not designed with mailing lists in mind. Multiple recipients, yes. That is why many MUA's have a reply all feature. But it was certainly not designed with what we think of as mailing lists in mind. On the other hand, USENET is the oldest Internet service around that is still in relatively common use. It even predates what we know of as the Internet. It is designed for threaded content, and NNTP messages are closely related to rfc822 (and it successors) messages that tools like spamassassin work just fine. Not to mention with newsgroups it is easy to reply to messages sent before you subscribed, which can be a pain with mailing lists. I am not aware of any common complaint about mewsgrousps that cannot be resolved simply by using a private (i.e. not syndicating) server to host the groups. So I really wonder why mailing lists are so common. -- The road to hell is paved with convenient shortcuts. --Peter da Silva -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
On Thursday 03 August 2006 23:37, John Goerzen took the opportunity to say: The mailer is doing the right thing. Sending a CC isn't a shout. The sender isn't. If the sender doesn't want CCs, it's fully within the sender's power to specify that in the list headers. Most senders on this list that don't want CCs do that. I am on dozens of mailing lists. There are thousands of participants on this list alone. I subscribe to, and leave, mailing lists all the time. Why should a person with a personal preference expect me to shoulder the burden of maintaining a mental list of that, when it's within his power to express his preference in a way that mail readers understand automatically? The same goes for the Debian CoC. I agree with Wouter on this. The CoC is at odds with the desires expressed in the mail headers. In the absence of a stated preference in a machine-readable format, a default policy should be followed. The Debian mailing lists CoC says that you should only send followups to the list. How is this at odds with the desires expressed in the mail headers, when no desire *is* expressed in the mail headers? No Reply-To or Mail-Followup-To at all is not expressing a desire to get a separate copy. Reply-To has been around since at least RFC822 (1982), and the person that wants to avoid personal CCs could use it. It is standard and it is widely supported. The problem with Reply-To is that there are two kinds of reply you can make to a list post: a list reply (follow up) and a private reply. It's not defined which kind of reply Reply-To applies to (that's the rationale behind Mail-Followup-To and Mail-Reply-To). One view is that Reply-To points to where the sender wants replies to go, without discussion. In that case you can't use it to say I don't want copies of list mail, but it's OK to send private replies. I think it should only be interpreted in the context of private replies. In any case, if you set Reply-To to the list, many mailers will make it cumbersome to send private replies. That's one of the arguments against Reply-To mangling. That it collides with any Reply-To set by the sender is just another one. There are, of course, problems with it. Mail-Followup-To is also a defacto standard (note that RFC is not the only way for a standard to occur; HTML, for instance, was a standard long before it got an RFC). Many mail clients do the right thing when they see it, and that is especially true here. If the person with the complaint had used this, he would have been fine. Problem: With most mailers you can't readily do that. You'd have to use your own MTA or some hack to automatically add it. Not only geeks use mailing lists, so it's not a viable option. On the other hand, all mailers let you edit the recipient list (although admittedly it can become rather repetitive). But why don't you use the list-reply command that Mutt provides? It's bound to L by default, AFAICS. Furthermore, all mailers involved in a thread have to know about Mail-Followup-To and preserve it, or things will break. Though you could say that it's a good policy to keep all the other recipients when replying. In short, it's a mess. Lots of improvements can be made, to MUAs, MLMs, as well as MTAs. An RFC straightening things out could help. -- Magnus Holmgren[EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Cc of list mail needed, thanks) pgpQQ7nWGwdKx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:21:28AM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote: In short, it's a mess. Lots of improvements can be made, to MUAs, MLMs, as well as MTAs. An RFC straightening things out could help. ... Or we could all just forget about mailinglists and start using newsgroups instead. They don't have these issues. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 03:04:05PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You know, I use a mail program. Replying to people is in my fingers as hitting a button. A very specific button, especially for that purpose. I expect my MUA to Do The Right Thing (TM). Most MUAs will do the right thing when you reply; they'll send a message to the single person who wrote the message. The person who wrote the message can indicate where this single-person reply should go, by specifying header fields such as 'From' and 'Reply-To'. Many MUAs also have a separate specific facility, for replying to *every* address related to the discussion. This is fine for a group of individuals, but problematic for a mailing list, since one of those addresses will be the mailing list address itself, and then some people get two copies -- one individually (which usually arrives first, since it has less processing time) and one from the mailing list. With mailing lists, there's a third kind of reply needed, a followup to continue the discussion. This usually should be sent to the mailing list address, and to people not on the mailing list but who want to receive followup responses. My point is, I do not see why there should be a difference between 'group reply' and 'list reply'. If the mailer detects that the mail is coming from a list (and this is very easy, there are some headers to say so), or if there is an MFT-header, then 'group reply' should just DTRT, rather than send the mail to everyone on the Cc list if that is not what is wanted. 'Reply to all' and 'Reply to list' is, after all, semantically the same thing. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 03:04:05PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You know, I use a mail program. Replying to people is in my fingers as hitting a button. A very specific button, especially for that purpose. I expect my MUA to Do The Right Thing (TM). Most MUAs will do the right thing when you reply; they'll send a message to the single person who wrote the message. The person who wrote the message can indicate where this single-person reply should go, by specifying header fields such as 'From' and 'Reply-To'. If you're partaking in a discussion on a mailing list, the replies should generally be sent back to the list. If I want to respond privately to a post, I should be aware that I'm breaking away from the public discussion and be aware enough to send the email to the address provided in the From field. Many MUAs also have a separate specific facility, for replying to *every* address related to the discussion. This is fine for a group of individuals, but problematic for a mailing list, since one of those addresses will be the mailing list address itself, and then some people get two copies -- one individually (which usually arrives first, since it has less processing time) and one from the mailing list. This is something that should be solved on the list manager side by not sending a duplicate of the email when it can see that an email was already sent to an address it recognizes. In fact, some of the lists I'm subscribed to do this. We can't use the mailing list address for this: that misses anyone who's not subscribed but wants followup messages. Then they set Reply-To to both the list address and their own. We can't use the Reply-To field in an existing message: that is specifically for *individual* responses to the person posting the message. This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any *mailbox(es)* to which responses are to be sent. This is completely wrong for followup messages intended for all interested parties. In the second case, an author may wish *additional persons to be made aware of, or responsible for, replies.* A somewhat different use may be of some help to text message teleconferencing groups equipped with automatic distribution services: *include the address of that service in the Reply- To field of all messages submitted to the teleconference;* then participants can reply to conference submissions to guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of their own. Above quotes are from Section 4.4.3 of RFC882, the description of the Reply-To / Resent-Reply-To fields (emphasis mine). There *is* no header field recommended by the IETF that meets this need. We use Mail-Followup-To because it actually meets the need described above. Reply-To specifically meets this need. It is even addressed in the actual description of the field. If you want to send a private reply, the From field gives you plenty of information. Otherwise, the Reply-To field provides all the information you need. There's no reason to add an ad hoc header to 'fix' something that isn't broken. James -- GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
Le vendredi 04 août 2006 à 09:45 -0400, James Vega a écrit : This is something that should be solved on the list manager side by not sending a duplicate of the email when it can see that an email was already sent to an address it recognizes. In fact, some of the lists I'm subscribed to do this. This would be absolutely horrible. Most list subscribers use the headers to put list email in separate directories, and this would make some mails miss from the discussion. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
On Friday 04 August 2006 09:57, Wouter Verhelst took the opportunity to say: On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:21:28AM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote: In short, it's a mess. Lots of improvements can be made, to MUAs, MLMs, as well as MTAs. An RFC straightening things out could help. ... Or we could all just forget about mailinglists and start using newsgroups instead. They don't have these issues. Indeed. What's the problem with Usenet that makes old-fashioned mailing lists as prevalent as they still are? Or, may I interest you in LysKOM? (See package lyskom-server.) Developed here in Linköping. That the best client is written in elisp shouldn't be a problem, right? -- Magnus Holmgren[EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Cc of list mail needed, thanks) pgpX1QcOvqTu2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: This would be absolutely horrible. Most list subscribers use the headers to put list email in separate directories, and this would make some mails miss from the discussion. It's an end-user configurable feature of mailman, so you can turn it on or off if you don't like it. -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Aug 04, 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: This would be absolutely horrible. Most list subscribers use the headers to put list email in separate directories, and this would make some mails miss from the discussion. It's an end-user configurable feature of mailman, so you can turn it on or off if you don't like it. Yeah, every time I discover that mail messages went mysteriously missing, I get to go into Mailman and turn the option off and hit the apply to every list button again to pick up all my new subscriptions at that host since the last time a piece of mail went missing. So much fun. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Friday 04 August 2006 09:57, Wouter Verhelst took the opportunity to say: On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:21:28AM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote: In short, it's a mess. Lots of improvements can be made, to MUAs, MLMs, as well as MTAs. An RFC straightening things out could help. ... Or we could all just forget about mailinglists and start using newsgroups instead. They don't have these issues. Indeed. What's the problem with Usenet that makes old-fashioned mailing lists as prevalent as they still are? No problem at all. Especially with gmane.org around. I used to subscribe to dozens of mailing lists, but now I can just browse all of them as newsgroups. -- The road to hell is paved with convenient shortcuts. --Peter da Silva -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 20:30 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:20:26AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 15:34 -0500, John Goerzen wrote: Ok, third time. Please do not do that: To: George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Then SET YOUR HEADERS to reflect that, like everyone else does. So you're shouting to people to use non-standard and not generally implemented headers to in order to have you comply with the mailinglist code of conduct? You know, I use a mail program. Replying to people is in my fingers as hitting a button. A very specific button, especially for that purpose. I expect my MUA to Do The Right Thing (TM). It usually does, except on the Debian mailinglists, where people start whining to me about some silly CoC. If your mailer makes you automatically go shouting on the push of a button, it may be time to download the source and get some serious hacking done. You won't see me making a fuss out of someone who sends someone else a CC when that was undesired. However, some mailinglist poster has clearly indicated for a couple of times already that he rather does not have that, so he appearently thinks that's important. I find it to be common courtesy if someone makes an explicit request, and stresses that request once more, to honour that request when reasonably possible. It doesn't cost me anything significant, does it? The person I was replying to chooses to ignore the request of the OP and even meets his request with hostility (shouting). Then in my opinion you've reached the limit of acceptable behaviour on this mailinglist. Thijs signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:24:10PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: You know, I use a mail program. Replying to people is in my fingers as hitting a button. A very specific button, especially for that purpose. I expect my MUA to Do The Right Thing (TM). It usually does, except on the Debian mailinglists, where people start whining to me about some silly CoC. If your mailer makes you automatically go shouting on the push of a button, it may be time to download the source and get some serious hacking done. The mailer is doing the right thing. Sending a CC isn't a shout. The sender isn't. If the sender doesn't want CCs, it's fully within the sender's power to specify that in the list headers. Most senders on this list that don't want CCs do that. I am on dozens of mailing lists. There are thousands of participants on this list alone. I subscribe to, and leave, mailing lists all the time. Why should a person with a personal preference expect me to shoulder the burden of maintaining a mental list of that, when it's within his power to express his preference in a way that mail readers understand automatically? The same goes for the Debian CoC. I agree with Wouter on this. The CoC is at odds with the desires expressed in the mail headers. Reply-To has been around since at least RFC822 (1982), and the person that wants to avoid personal CCs could use it. It is standard and it is widely supported. There are, of course, problems with it. Mail-Followup-To is also a defacto standard (note that RFC is not the only way for a standard to occur; HTML, for instance, was a standard long before it got an RFC). Many mail clients do the right thing when they see it, and that is especially true here. If the person with the complaint had used this, he would have been fine. Remember the old FidoNet mantra? Don't be excessively annoying, and don't be easily annoyed. If he was bothered so much by the CCs, he should have added the Mail-Followup-To header to his messages rather than getting excessively annoyed about it. It's a personal preference thing, and since it is trivially accomodated on his end, why should thousands of people try to remember that this person on this list doesn't want CC's? The person I was replying to chooses to ignore the request of the OP and even meets his request with hostility (shouting). Then in my opinion you've reached the limit of acceptable behaviour on this mailinglist. I did not *choose to ignore* it. I didn't even see it until his latest message, and I meant not to CC him there but accidentally did anyway due to force of habit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
On Friday 04 August 2006 00:37, John Goerzen wrote: On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:24:10PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: You know, I use a mail program. Replying to people is in my fingers as hitting a button. A very specific button, especially for that purpose. I expect my MUA to Do The Right Thing (TM). It usually does, except on the Debian mailinglists, where people start whining to me about some silly CoC. If your mailer makes you automatically go shouting on the push of a button, it may be time to download the source and get some serious hacking done. The mailer is doing the right thing. Sending a CC isn't a shout. Obviously he was pointing your caps... how do you feel that... The sender isn't. If the sender doesn't want CCs, it's fully within the sender's power to specify that in the list headers. Most senders on this list that don't want CCs do that. I am on dozens of mailing lists. There are thousands of participants on this list alone. I subscribe to, and leave, mailing lists all the time. Why should a person with a personal preference expect me to shoulder the burden of maintaining a mental list of that, when it's within his power to express his preference in a way that mail readers understand automatically? The same goes for the Debian CoC. I agree with Wouter on this. The CoC is at odds with the desires expressed in the mail headers. You can CC despite headers set by the other parties, therefore the current CoC is fine wrt 'do not CC to people subscribed', though it could be updated with Reply-To and Mail-Followup-To if you think it is currently being odd. Reply-To has been around since at least RFC822 (1982), and the person that wants to avoid personal CCs could use it. It is standard and it is widely supported. There are, of course, problems with it. Mail-Followup-To is also a defacto standard (note that RFC is not the only way for a standard to occur; HTML, for instance, was a standard long before it got an RFC). Many mail clients do the right thing when they see it, and that is especially true here. If the person with the complaint had used this, he would have been fine. OK, fine, point taken. Remember the old FidoNet mantra? Don't be excessively annoying, and don't be easily annoyed. If he was bothered so much by the CCs, he should have added the Mail-Followup-To header to his messages rather than getting excessively annoyed about it. My 'excessive annoyance' is your assumption. I just wrote 'Please, ...' nothing more, so do not accept that as any sort of annoyance or flamage. It's a personal preference thing, and since it is trivially accomodated on his end, why should thousands of people try to remember that this person on this list doesn't want CC's? The person I was replying to chooses to ignore the request of the OP and even meets his request with hostility (shouting). Then in my opinion you've reached the limit of acceptable behaviour on this mailinglist. I did not *choose to ignore* it. I didn't even see it until his latest message, and I meant not to CC him there but accidentally did anyway due to force of habit. Ok, that's fine, minor communication disturbance happend and should no more be an issue. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 01:27:15AM +0300, George Danchev wrote: On Friday 04 August 2006 00:37, John Goerzen wrote: If your mailer makes you automatically go shouting on the push of a button, it may be time to download the source and get some serious hacking done. The mailer is doing the right thing. Sending a CC isn't a shout. Obviously he was pointing your caps... how do you feel that... Ah, I had forgotten about that. Sorry, I shouldn't have shouted there. You can CC despite headers set by the other parties, therefore the current CoC is fine wrt 'do not CC to people subscribed', though it could be updated with Reply-To and Mail-Followup-To if you think it is currently being odd. Yes, I think that would make a lot of sense. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am on dozens of mailing lists. There are thousands of participants on this list alone. I subscribe to, and leave, mailing lists all the time. Why should a person with a personal preference expect me to shoulder the burden of maintaining a mental list of that, when it's within his power to express his preference in a way that mail readers understand automatically? On Debian lists the desire for no Ccs is not a personal preference but it is the default. Only if you want a Cc you should say so. This is what the CoC says. If you don't agree with that - change it. But don't just ignore it. Decent MUAs can be configured to send followups to the list only and just Do The Right Thing. The same goes for the Debian CoC. I agree with Wouter on this. The CoC is at odds with the desires expressed in the mail headers. In my view a missing mail header doesn't express any desire. Reply-To has been around since at least RFC822 (1982), and the person that wants to avoid personal CCs could use it. It is standard and it is widely supported. There are people who distinguish between followups and replies. There Reply-To is not a perfect solution either. There are, of course, problems with it. Mail-Followup-To is also a defacto standard (note that RFC is not the only way for a standard to occur; HTML, for instance, was a standard long before it got an RFC). Many mail clients do the right thing when they see it, and that is especially true here. If the person with the complaint had used this, he would have been fine. My MUA sets MFT but I still get a number of Ccs. Fact is that MFT is not implemented in every MUA or is disabled by default. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You know, I use a mail program. Replying to people is in my fingers as hitting a button. A very specific button, especially for that purpose. I expect my MUA to Do The Right Thing (TM). Most MUAs will do the right thing when you reply; they'll send a message to the single person who wrote the message. The person who wrote the message can indicate where this single-person reply should go, by specifying header fields such as 'From' and 'Reply-To'. Many MUAs also have a separate specific facility, for replying to *every* address related to the discussion. This is fine for a group of individuals, but problematic for a mailing list, since one of those addresses will be the mailing list address itself, and then some people get two copies -- one individually (which usually arrives first, since it has less processing time) and one from the mailing list. With mailing lists, there's a third kind of reply needed, a followup to continue the discussion. This usually should be sent to the mailing list address, and to people not on the mailing list but who want to receive followup responses. We can't use the mailing list address for this: that misses anyone who's not subscribed but wants followup messages. We can't use the Reply-To field in an existing message: that is specifically for *individual* responses to the person posting the message. This is completely wrong for followup messages intended for all interested parties. There *is* no header field recommended by the IETF that meets this need. We use Mail-Followup-To because it actually meets the need described above. -- \ My interest is in the future, as I am going to spend the rest | `\ of my life there. -- Charles F. Kettering | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
