Re: Cc: to poster (was Re: OT: less v. more...)
Hi! I assume that Bolan is on the list? And Ben, are you on -user? Is there a way to check with this list-agent who is on a list like majordomo can? Or is it just disabled? On 03 Aug 2000, Bolan Meek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, good, so, with this assumption, one ought to remove the personal To:'s and Cc:'s, unless requested? (Like you did..) It's what I usually do (with exception to Ben in this case, I got the impression from the discussion so far that he isn't on -user). Brian May wrote: The mail-copies-to header does sound good, but I have mixed feelings as to if it really solves the problems. It can at least solve the problem for the people that are not aware of what they are doing and using clients that don't know about mailing-lists at all and therefore don't have a Reply-To-List function. Oh, BTW, Mail-CopiesTo: never is obsolete, use nobody instead. See http://www.newsreaders.com/misc/mail-copies-to.html Thanks for the hint. I don't know why I missed that for I read on just this page about it ;-) OK. So henceforth, my practice will be to remove personal Cc:s Thank you. So I guess we can just close this thread :) I would prefer another header (does the followup-to header do this??), that is like reply-to:, except it works for group followups, rather then private replies. Even better, if it supported mailing lists *and* newsgroups... If the poster hasn't submitted one, the mailing list software could add a default one. If there is already a header, it shouldn't be replaced. This should be no problem - in a MUA that is aware of lists. I don't know if there are many besides mutt that could do that? But I think we get far to far away from the topic of the list. Sadly I don't know where a good point for discussing this would be? Maybe news:news.software.readers for Mail-Copies-To: was also discussed there? Another-words, I think it should be up to the sender to specify exactly where the group reply should go. If the sender doesn't say, then the mailing list should be able to specify. This should happen without affecting private replies (so reply-to can't be used). I double that. It's really a PITA to use such a mis-configured list (with Reply-To: list set :-/ ). One problem I have, is that posts come to me From: the poster, and my MUA doesn't respect the Resent-from: header, so if I `Reply`, it goes only to the poster, but when I `Reply-all`, the list is Cc:ed. I haven't noticed a Followup-to: header (but I haven't sought them, either), so I don't know what my MUA shall do with those. Netscape isn't the best MUA to choose from. It lacks many features that are really useful if you are on several lists, and/or use different From-Addresses. I'd sugguest you to give mutt[1] a try. It might be a little hard to find your way to it (it's text-based, some don't like that), but it's really paying off for it. Have fun! Alfie [1] http://www.mutt.org/ - I'm not on -user, this thread was original from -devel -- Ask not for whom the telephone bell tolls ... if thou art in the bathtub, it tolls for thee.
Re: Cc: to poster (was Re: OT: less v. more...)
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I assume that Bolan is on the list? And Ben, are you on -user? See, the thing is, I didn't start this thread of discussion and I'm not at all interested in a rehash of this topic. And what's more, I already asked on debian-user to be dropped from CC:'s. So, if you'd just not email me any more about it, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Ben.
Re: Cc: to poster (was Re: OT: less v. more...)
On 04 Aug 2000, Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See, the thing is, I didn't start this thread of discussion and I'm not at all interested in a rehash of this topic. And what's more, I already asked on debian-user to be dropped from CC:'s. ROTFL 8-)) Here you can see quite clearly that it's not a good idea to Cc: one when replying. For my person I stated quite soon (after the first mail I got that was Cc:ed to -user) that I don't read that special list. So, if you'd just not email me any more about it, I'd greatly appreciate it. It would be a good idea to start with the things you request yourself. I don't speak of my person, but that you Cc:ed Bolan who also wrote quite often that he _is_ on -user and don't need to be Cc:ed. I think I will skip the comfort of noticing it on the list and send a seperate mail to everyone that Cc:es me. This will destroy the additional feature that other might read it and react appropriately but on the other hand will stop such mega threads. Have fun! Alfie -- Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining. -- Jeff Raskin, interviewed in Doctor Dobb's Journal
Cc: to poster (was Re: OT: less v. more...)
Gerfried Fuchs wrote: On 02 Aug 2000, Bolan Meek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On topics arisen from this discussion, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: ...BTW, please refrain from sending to _both_ the list and me, I read the list. ... One may assume that those whose names one sees often are subuscribed, but how to be sure, generally? I propose ...In general, on open lists you should assume one is reading the list s/he is posting to Ah, good, so, with this assumption, one ought to remove the personal To:'s and Cc:'s, unless requested? (Like you did..) a habit of including in the .sig a notice: I'm on this list ...And how should I know what e.g. Ben had in his signature about being on the list or not? How should one know what your intention was to Cc: him? This might work for the first time, but not for the next replies (which, on a discussion-list are very likely). Well, if his .sig was respected, he should no longer be in the Cc: list, in the first place. But the point is taken about the .sig not being worth much for this, as a convention. It also occurs to me that some might not want to yield their .sig space for this, in favor of whatever political/religious/humor message. ... Brian May wrote: Gerfried == Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gerfried I go another way: I included now a header that should Gerfried be respected by most MUAs: Mail-CopiesTo: never The mail-copies-to header does sound good, but I have mixed feelings as to if it really solves the problems. Oh, BTW, Mail-CopiesTo: never is obsolete, use nobody instead. See http://www.newsreaders.com/misc/mail-copies-to.html Mostly coming from this: Gerfried I think newcomers should rather be guided to _not_ Cc: Gerfried one posting to a list than to rely on some obscure Gerfried sentence in one's signature. The header I noticed is a Gerfried proposed draft that is included in some MUAs, and will Gerfried quite possibly be in by more in the future. OK. So henceforth, my practice will be to remove personal Cc:s Thank you. ... I would prefer another header (does the followup-to header do this??), that is like reply-to:, except it works for group followups, rather then private replies. Even better, if it supported mailing lists *and* newsgroups... If the poster hasn't submitted one, the mailing list software could add a default one. If there is already a header, it shouldn't be replaced. Another-words, I think it should be up to the sender to specify exactly where the group reply should go. If the sender doesn't say, then the mailing list should be able to specify. This should happen without affecting private replies (so reply-to can't be used). One problem I have, is that posts come to me From: the poster, and my MUA doesn't respect the Resent-from: header, so if I `Reply`, it goes only to the poster, but when I `Reply-all`, the list is Cc:ed. I haven't noticed a Followup-to: header (but I haven't sought them, either), so I don't know what my MUA shall do with those. -- I'm on the -user list. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 972-729-5387 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (home ph. on Q) http://www.koyote.com/users/bolan RE: xmailtool http://www.koyote.com/users/bolan/xmailtool/index.html RMS of Borg: Resistance is futile; you shall be freed.
Re: Cc: to poster (was Re: OT: less v. more...)
Frankly, I'd appreciate it if you guys would stop CC:'ing *me* in this discussion, which is *way* sidetracked from what I wrote.
Re: Cc: to poster (was Re: OT: less v. more...)
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 10:34:35AM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote: Gerfried Fuchs wrote: On 02 Aug 2000, Bolan Meek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On topics arisen from this discussion, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: ...BTW, please refrain from sending to _both_ the list and me, I read the list. ... One may assume that those whose names one sees often are subuscribed, but how to be sure, generally? I propose ...In general, on open lists you should assume one is reading the list s/he is posting to Ah, good, so, with this assumption, one ought to remove the personal To:'s and Cc:'s, unless requested? (Like you did..) $0.02: Posts to list are responded to on list. Mutt supports this through the L (rely to list) keybinding. This also gets around (and moots) mailing list software that defaults to reply to sender rather than reply to list. My procmail filters tend to dump list mail cc's to my list folder -- cc's to me just result in duplicate items within the list folder. I'll cc a person who requests an off-list response. I generally don't cotton personal requests I recieve as followups to a response I've made on list (with or without a cc), though a status update is sometimes interesting. I'll forward a direct support request made to me rather than a list to the list unless it comes from a personal friend. I find this behavior unspeakably rude. I've had this policy for years on a number of mailing lists. ...and I generally try to scan headers to see that I don't propogate cc: lists, though I'll sometimes slip. -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of Gestalt don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 pgpB69ntKI42o.pgp Description: PGP signature
