Sorry, for the late reply but found the message in the Spamfolder...
Am 2009-04-29 10:35:08, schrieb Giacomo A. Catenazzi:
But you fail also on pragmatic level:
a lot of discussions are stopped because of lack of CC:
Take debian-legal.
How a non-subscriber can follow discussion?
How he can
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
You're arguing that a Reply-To header is harmful (not that I am
convinced)
That field is very useful. What's harmful is mailing-list software
munging that field, which is for the author to set and for nothing else
to fiddle with.
Yup. Reply-To
I demand that Noah Slater may or may not have written...
[snip; in reply to Brett Parker]
Considering that we're discussing on a mailing list, it's reasonable to
assume that the common case is replying to the list. Why optimise for, what
is surely by definition, the uncommon case?
Why *break*
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 15:12 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be writes:
If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list:
If I select Reply:
To=mailing-list
CC=
If I select Reply to all:
To=mailing-list
CC=Previous email's
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 09:20 +1000, Brian May wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:54:07PM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list:
If I select Reply:
To=mailing-list
CC=
What if you are replying to a response to somebody who is
Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be writes:
The whole m-l / CoC problem comes from the assumption that all MUAs
have advanced features, that are properly configured, and end-user
have good understanding of what to do.
If we can't achieve a reasonable behavior using Joe User's
two-buttons-MUA,
On Wed,29.Apr.09, 10:22:50, Brian May wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:19:04AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
How Mutt is able to detect all mailing lists? The fields in the headers
only allow to detect the current mailing list.
You can define what are mailing lists using the lists and
On 2009-04-29 07:46 (+0200), Adeodato Simó wrote:
+ Frank Lin PIAT (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:54:07 +0200):
If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list:
If the sender of the previous mail was NOT subscribed to the list.
And how does one (or their MUA) know which of these is the
Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be writes:
Note that at the moment, my MUA (Evolution) has three buttons. None
behave correctly for mailing lists:
Reply = Reply to sender only
Reply to all = reply to all previous sender and recipients
Reply to list = Reply to list only, dropping non-subscribed
Ben Finney wrote:
Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be writes:
Note that at the moment, my MUA (Evolution) has three buttons. None
behave correctly for mailing lists:
Reply = Reply to sender only
Reply to all = reply to all previous sender and recipients
Reply to list = Reply to list only, dropping
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
If someone writes a message to a list, but doesn't arrange to read
messages from that list, I don't think we can expect software to
automatically figure out that they would nevertheless like to
receive those messages.
[…]
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:11:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Personally, I'm fine with giving up on the no-cc policy. Just about
every other technical mailing list that I read tends to accumulate cc's
until someone gets around to removing them, and mostly people just deal
with a bit of
I demand that Ben Finney may or may not have written...
[snip]
If someone writes a message to a list, but doesn't arrange to read messages
from that list, I don't think we can expect software to automatically
figure out that they would nevertheless like to receive those messages.
We certainly
On Wed,29.Apr.09, 14:27:45, Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Ben Finney may or may not have written...
[snip]
If someone writes a message to a list, but doesn't arrange to read messages
from that list, I don't think we can expect software to automatically
figure out that they would
+ Andrei Popescu (Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:56:29 +0300):
On Wed,29.Apr.09, 14:27:45, Darren Salt wrote:
The list management software, OTOH, can [add] a Mail-Followup-To
header, if one is not already present, containing the list address
and, if the sender is not subscribed, his address.
This
On Tuesday 28 April 2009 05:11:26 Russ Allbery wrote:
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
As far as I see it:
* Debian has dropped the Reply-To header because it is harmful in
some way.
* Debian has mandated that all replies must behave as if Reply-To
existed.
If this
OoO En cette fin de nuit blanche du mardi 28 avril 2009, vers 05:27,
Brian May b...@snoopy.debian.net disait :
I tried hard, for many years, to love the Mail-Followup-To field, but I
must agree that it doesn't serve the purpose well enough to recommend.
(Briefly: it breaks when a
William Pitcock neno...@sacredspiral.co.uk writes:
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 14:05 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
As it sadly happens many times every day. And as long as there are
no means to enforce it (either pure social or aided by technology),
it will continue to happen.
Reply-To:
+ Mike Hommey (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:46:35 +0200):
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:53:12AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument
is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian
On 27 Apr 18:55, Noah Slater wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:48:50PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I fully agree with this. I think having to remember which key one must
use in each context for reply is lame. This is why I do in my ~/.muttrc:
[...]
Where l/debian is the folder which
On 28 Apr 03:58, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
Ben Finney a écrit :
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument
is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian
lists, which as you can see, doesn't
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:46:01AM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
*boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you don't use server side
filtering and folders?! OK - now that's just plain odd.
Neither do I, does that make me odd too? By all means comment on how I
or anyone elses uses lists,
Brett Parker idu...@sommitrealweird.co.uk writes:
On 27 Apr 18:55, Noah Slater wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't use folders so I don't think this will work
for me.
*boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you don't use
server side filtering and folders?! OK - now that's just
On 27 Apr 18:49, Noah Slater wrote:
So, user error, not software error...
This illustrates my point perfectly!
It's not user error, because I'm just doing what I've learnt to do.
Erm - how's that not user error? What you've learnt is obviously wrong. Relearn
how to use your MUA
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:56:59AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Another problem on the flip side is that many people don't observe the please
cc me requests on Debian mailing lists, and that way communication gets
annoying. So in practical terms, it is safer to add more recipients to the
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:04:50AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Anyway, the first rule of internet:
be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others,
so people should accept wrong CC:s without crying, and people should follow
the CoC when sending mails.
The
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:16:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 27 avril 2009 à 14:44 +0200, Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
If you're annoyed by cc:s (well, Holger, I know you are, you told me about that
more than once :-) ), configure your mailclient to set
Roger Leigh wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:04:50AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Anyway, the first rule of internet:
be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others,
so people should accept wrong CC:s without crying, and people should follow
the CoC when
I demand that Ben Finney may or may not have written...
[snip; M-F-T]
RFC2822 (which define the semantics of ‘From’ and ‘Reply-To’) and
RFC2369 (which defines the semantics of ‘List-Post’) are
IETF-recommended standards; the other never achieved that.
Given that it's seen some use and been
Peter Eisentraut pet...@debian.org writes:
Considering that most mailing list software has an elimnatecc feature,
this is never really a problem for people who don't want that sort of
behavior.
This feature is hideously broken for people (like myself) who split
list mail into separate
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:25:29AM -0700, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pet...@debian.org writes:
Considering that most mailing list software has an elimnatecc feature,
this is never really a problem for people who don't want that sort of
behavior.
This feature
On 2009-04-28, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:25:29AM -0700, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org
wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pet...@debian.org writes:
Considering that most mailing list software has an elimnatecc feature,
this is never really a problem for people who
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:12:22PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Brett Parker idu...@sommitrealweird.co.uk writes:
On 27 Apr 18:55, Noah Slater wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't use folders so I don't think this will work
for me.
*boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you
+ Mike Hommey (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:52:36 +0200):
Since I wouldn't dream of recommending anyone use a proprietary data
silo like Google Mail, I invite you instead to look at the ‘sup’ package
for a folder-less approach to organising email messages that many say is
superior.
Description:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:52:36PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:12:22PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Folders aren't the only way to manage lots of messages sanely; ask any
Google Mail user.
Since I wouldn't dream of recommending anyone use a proprietary data
silo
Mike Hommey a écrit :
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:12:22PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Brett Parker idu...@sommitrealweird.co.uk writes:
On 27 Apr 18:55, Noah Slater wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't use folders so I don't think this will work
for me.
*boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 03:13:41PM -0400, James Vega wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:52:36PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:12:22PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Folders aren't the only way to manage lots of messages sanely; ask any
Google Mail user.
Since I
Hello,
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 12:07 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no writes:
I don't know, but there are plenty of reasons to choose from. See e.g.
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
A stronger, and simpler, case is made by
Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be writes:
If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list:
If I select Reply:
To=mailing-list
CC=
If I select Reply to all:
To=mailing-list
CC=Previous email's recipient.
If the sender of the previous mail was NOT subscribed
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:54:07PM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list:
If I select Reply:
To=mailing-list
CC=
What if you are replying to a response to somebody who is not
subscribed to the list?
The emailer you are responding
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 02:34:11PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
personally I've more difficulty on handling usenet post on different
computer: synchronize read post at home, office and offline laptop.
Unfortunately, this has also put me off NNTP. I think this is a
limitation in the
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:19:04AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
How Mutt is able to detect all mailing lists? The fields in the headers
only allow to detect the current mailing list.
You can define what are mailing lists using the lists and subcribe
config options.
--
Brian May
+ Frank Lin PIAT (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:54:07 +0200):
If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list:
[...]
If the sender of the previous mail was NOT subscribed to the list.
[...]
And how does one (or their MUA) know which of these is the case?
--
- Are you sure we're good?
-
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 07:46 +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
+ Frank Lin PIAT (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:54:07 +0200):
If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list:
[...]
If the sender of the previous mail was NOT subscribed to the list.
[...]
And how does one (or their MUA)
Hi,
On Montag, 27. April 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
Interestingly you did it again, ignoring the list Code of Conduct.
As it sadly happens many times every day. And as long as there are no means to
enforce it (either pure social or aided by technology), it will continue to
happen.
regards,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:05:37PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Montag, 27. April 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
Interestingly you did it again, ignoring the list Code of Conduct.
As it sadly happens many times every day. And as long as there are no means to
enforce it (either pure social
Hi
Dne Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:39:15 +0100
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org napsal(a):
* The Debian lists are the only lists I have ever come across that mandate,
or
even care, about such a thing. I have been on many lists in my time, and
my
current list of mailing list
Hi,
On Montag, 27. April 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
Interestingly you did it again, ignoring the list Code of Conduct.
As it sadly happens many times every day. And as long as there are no means
to
enforce it (either pure social or aided by technology), it will continue to
happen.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:39:15PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
* The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, meaning that by default my
email client wants to send replies to individual posters. To get the
mailing
list included in the reply means that I have to reply to all. It's a
Dear lazylist,
On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
* The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header,
does someone know why?
regards,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 03:03:10PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
* The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header,
does someone know why?
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
* The Debian lists are the only lists I have ever come across that
mandate, or
even care, about such a thing. I have been on many lists in my time,
and my
current list of mailing list subscriptions stands at 73. On
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org writes:
On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
* The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header,
does someone know why?
I don't know, but there are plenty of reasons to choose from. See e.g.
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Those
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:06:01PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 03:03:10PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
* The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header,
does someone know why?
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
Definitely not the only one which mandates this.
Please list others so I can mock them.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
* I don't know much about mailing list software, so I'm not going to be as
bold as to suggest I know what the solution is. However, on all the other
lists, I never get duplicate copies of email when people reply to me with
an
Hi
Dne Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:33:06 +
Clint Adams sch...@debian.org napsal(a):
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
Definitely not the only one which mandates this.
Please list others so I can mock them.
For example Mutt lists I mentioned. I saw the same rule in
Le lundi 27 avril 2009 à 14:44 +0200, Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
If you're annoyed by cc:s (well, Holger, I know you are, you told me about
that
more than once :-) ), configure your mailclient to set Mail-Followup-To and
hope
for the next poster's mailclient to support that header. Which
Noah Slater wrote:
Either you avoid Reply-To because it is harmful and accept that you will get
carbon copies from the commonly implemented group reply function of modern
mail
clients, or you include the harmful Reply-To header and avoid it.
What am I missing? This seems too obviously
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:19:08PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Noah Slater wrote:
Either you avoid Reply-To because it is harmful and accept that you will
get
carbon copies from the commonly implemented group reply function of modern
mail
clients, or you include the harmful
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Mail-Followup-To is:
A. Useless junk without clear semantics
B. Violating standards
Which standards would that be?
Bjørn
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On 27 Apr 15:41, Noah Slater wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:19:08PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Noah Slater wrote:
Either you avoid Reply-To because it is harmful and accept that you
will get
carbon copies from the commonly implemented group reply function of
modern
+ Noah Slater (Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:10:17 +0100):
Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument
is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian
lists
I fully agree with this. I think having to remember which key one must
use in each context for reply
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:09:19PM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
On 27 Apr 15:41, Noah Slater wrote:
You're arguing that a Reply-To header is harmful (not that I am
convinced) and
Think of the occasions when you actually do want to do an offlist reply - it's
not that uncommon - having
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:48:50PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I fully agree with this. I think having to remember which key one must
use in each context for reply is lame. This is why I do in my ~/.muttrc:
[...]
Where l/debian is the folder which contains Debian lists, and it allows
to always
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:16:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
C. Only supported by a handful of clients
A number of clients won't automatically generate the header, but may
still support it for group replies. I think this might include Evolution
and Thunderbid (although it was a while
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument
is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian
lists, which as you can see, doesn't happen very often.
No, the point of a ‘reply to list’ command is you *don't*
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org writes:
Dear lazylist,
On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
* The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header,
does someone know why?
In brief: because that field is for the *sender* to set, if they want;
and the mailing list software has
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:53:12AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
No, the point of a ‘reply to list’ command is you *don't* have to
remember when to use it. Just use it every time you reply to any list,
and it will DTRT because it uses the standard fields which are in just
about every mailing list
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
You're arguing that a Reply-To header is harmful (not that I am
convinced)
That field is very useful. What's harmful is mailing-list software
munging that field, which is for the author to set and for nothing else
to fiddle with.
--
\ “Saying
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
As far as I see it:
* Debian has dropped the Reply-To header because it is harmful in
some way.
* Debian has mandated that all replies must behave as if Reply-To existed.
If this were the case, this would be an easy solution. However, it's
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:11:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
The primary problem with setting Reply-To is that it makes private
replies extremely difficult (in clients that honor the RFC-defined
meaning of the header field, at least) and significantly increases the
chances that private
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Le lundi 27 avril 2009 à 14:44 +0200, Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
If you're annoyed by cc:s (well, Holger, I know you are, you told me
about that more than once :-) ), configure your mailclient to set
Mail-Followup-To
Mail-Followup-To is:
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no writes:
I don't know, but there are plenty of reasons to choose from. See e.g.
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
A stronger, and simpler, case is made by
URL:http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful/ which
notes that the newer IETF standards
Ben Finney a écrit :
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument
is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian
lists, which as you can see, doesn't happen very often.
No, the point of a ‘reply to
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:16:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 27 avril 2009 à 14:44 +0200, Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
If you're annoyed by cc:s (well, Holger, I know you are, you told me about
that
more than once :-) ), configure your mailclient to set Mail-Followup-To and
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:35:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt
Perfectly well defined.
An interesting riposte for those arguing the opposite IETF angle.
If adherence to standards is so important, surely it's a
Brian May b...@snoopy.debian.net writes:
IIRC Thunderbird use to have a reply to list command, but I can't find
it anymore :-(.
The bug has been open since 2000, and has recently seen activity again
URL:https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45715.
Meanwhile Debian's Thunderbird is
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
I am not saying anything like I will not obey the Code of Conduct
because it is stupid but rather something like I will try my best,
like I have been doing, but I know I will continue to fail.
Well, “like you have been doing” means *not* using it, even
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
If this is such a concern, I would like to see the Code of Conduct
updates to recommend that people concerned with follow up emails set
the appropriate headers in their own clients. This was detailed
earlier in this thread.
The appropriate fields
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Is this so hard, people? We have large brains evolved in part
precisely for the purpose of figuring out the protocols of
communication and applying them moment to moment. If you don't want to
decide in a given instance whether you want to respond
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:35:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt
Perfectly well defined.
An interesting riposte for those arguing the opposite IETF angle.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:10:14PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
I tried hard, for many years, to love the Mail-Followup-To field, but I
must agree that it doesn't serve the purpose well enough to recommend.
(Briefly: it breaks when a discussion crosses between different mailing
lists, and other
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:54:56PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Well, “like you have been doing” means *not* using it, even in this
thread, so I find the above rather difficult to believe — especially
because “I forgot” is even less plausible in the context of this
thread where you've been
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:59:53PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
The appropriate fields *are* set: the mailing list sets the RFC 2369
fields for replies to the list, and the author sets the From and
(optionally) the Reply-To fields for replies to the sender.
The appropriate fields are set, I never
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:53:12AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes:
Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument
is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian
lists, which as you can see, doesn't happen very
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 14:05 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Montag, 27. April 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
Interestingly you did it again, ignoring the list Code of Conduct.
As it sadly happens many times every day. And as long as there are no means
to
enforce it (either pure social
87 matches
Mail list logo
