'Lars Wirzenius wrote:'
Spam does make furious, extra Cc's from mailing lists don't. They
just annoy me (see signature), and in theory they do cost me a bit.
Not enough to make me worry about it, but enough to write kilobyte after
kilobyte about it.
I do wish that people wouldn't Cc me when I
From: Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But when you have the right phone, and you know the trick with the
Follow button you can dial for free (even internationally!).
If you get caught they are less likely to let you visit their country
again :-) . I got a speeding ticket from the darn
You (Bruce Perens) wrote:
About the funniest part is trying to find a pay phone. Many countries
only have them in post offices. When I visited Australia, there were
blue phones and gold phones, and only the gold ones could make long
distance calls.
But when you have the right phone, and you
Dale Scheetz writes (Re: CC's on this mailing list):
...
However, there are several people who post to the lists, but don't read
them, who ask to be responded to directly. Maybe we should just require
that these people suffer reading the lists like the rest of us?
Yes. It is rude to post
Mr Stuart Lamble wrote:
All very nice, but it dodges the major reason for people disliking duplicate
copies of messages: they pay for their PPP link (or UUCP feed, or whatever).
Identifying duplicates by their message IDs means that you have to download
both messages, unless you can do the
Bernd Eckenfels:
umm... I'm not going to bring calculation examples.. usually you wont notice
a few mails eighter in a uucp batch nor in ppp background transmission.
Indeed, but it's the principle that matters. Spam isn't costing me
all that much either, but I still get furious when I get it.
Hi,
All very nice, but it dodges the major reason for people disliking duplicate
copies of messages: they pay for their PPP link (or UUCP feed, or whatever).
I wasn't thinking about this. Good point.
umm... I'm not going to bring calculation examples.. usually you wont notice
a few mails
On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, Ian Jackson wrote:
I'm considering adding a paragraph to the policy manual telling people
not to CC each other when replying to messages on debian-devel.
Is it the consensus of the list that this would be a good idea ?
It would certainly keep the multiplicity of
Ian Jackson writes:
Miquel van Smoorenburg writes (Re: CC's on this mailing list):
...
I've noticed on some other lists that everything that is posted on the
list has From: set to the original sender, Reply-To: to the list address
and Cc: deleted.
This is actually very nice
Yves Arrouye:
Then actually it makes it hard in these mailes to reply to just the
list.
It's easy to delete addresses, difficult to copy them.
Whether public or private replies are more common depends on the writer,
not the list. I make a fair number of private answers.
Checking your To and
Brian C. White writes:
I'm considering adding a paragraph to the policy manual telling people
not to CC each other when replying to messages on debian-devel.
Is it the consensus of the list that this would be a good idea ?
If it is relavent to me specifically (eg. relates to one
Miquel van Smoorenburg writes (Re: CC's on this mailing list):
...
I've noticed on some other lists that everything that is posted on the
list has From: set to the original sender, Reply-To: to the list address
and Cc: deleted.
This is actually very nice. Would it be hard (or just a bad idea
I'm considering adding a paragraph to the policy manual telling people
not to CC each other when replying to messages on debian-devel.
Is it the consensus of the list that this would be a good idea ?
It's a difficult call. Quite often I get copies of mail simply because
I posted the msg
Yves Arrouye writes (CC's on this mailing list):
Ian Jackson writes:
I'm considering adding a paragraph to the policy manual telling people
not to CC each other when replying to messages on debian-devel.
Is it the consensus of the list that this would be a good idea ?
It would be
14 matches
Mail list logo
