Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside]

Hi,

On 2021-08-12 1:17 p.m., Nicolas George wrote:
> Curt (12021-08-12):
>> Certainly. But you did volunteer to comment on a conflictual discussion
>> between a mere pair of users, both of whom violated the Debian mailing
>> list rules. Of these two violations, why you chose to call out the
>> innocuous one, for which a reasonable explanation was given, however
>> misguided, while ignoring the morally serious infraction (rendering a
>> private matter public), is left as the traditional exercise.
> 
> Since you are trying to turn this discussion into a trial against me, I
> will clarify a few things.
> 
You are something rarely found in matter of not letting go.
Still fighting against the wind.

What about using your energy for something positive ?

> I had forgotten that the mailing-list rules state clearly to complain in
> private, and I have neglected this rule by mistake. I apologize for it.
> 
> Nonetheless, there are a few details in your accusations that need to be
> set straight:
> 
> - The two rules are on exactly the same level in. You choose to call one
>   innocuous and the other morally serious. This is your judgement, not
>   universal. What we can objectively say is that one came first, and was
>   deliberate.
> 
> - If you read carefully, I did not complain of being CCed. Anybody can
>   forget to edit the headers before sending, I wound not have complained
>   for so little. In fact, I did not complained, I advised:
>   Ms Racicot-Summerside did not CC by mistake, she purposefully overrode
>   a reply-to header, it is a mistake that can have more severe
>   consequences than an extraneous CC, including replies getting lost or
>   arriving where they should definitely not arrive. The purpose of my
>   mail was not to complain, it was to advise.
> 
> I will ask you, if you want to continue piling accusations and reproach
> over me, to at least have your facts straight.
> 
> That being said, I am sure I will now remember that this kind of mail is
> to be sent in private, and I apologize again for forgetting and thus
> wasting everybody's time in a useless discussion that has already been
> too long.
May I remember yourself what you wrote here ?

If it's been so for *too long* then maybe go out for a walk and take
some fresh air.

Or take a week away from the computer
> 
> My next mail in this thread will be to give an account of the
> configuration of the printer, but it will have to wait a little that I
> have upgraded the relevant host to Bullseye.
> 




> Regards,
> 

-- 
Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside
-Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[Brian]

On Thu 12 Aug 2021 at 19:17:42 +0200, Nicolas George wrote:

[...]

> My next mail in this thread will be to give an account of the
> configuration of the printer, but it will have to wait a little that I
> have upgraded the relevant host to Bullseye.

Personally, I look forward to that. Please try USB *and* network. May
I suggest a new thread rather than a continuation of this one, which
is concerned with the general suitability of a printer for driverless
printing rather than the specifics for a particular printer.

-- 
Brian.

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[Nicolas George]

Curt (12021-08-12):
> Certainly. But you did volunteer to comment on a conflictual discussion
> between a mere pair of users, both of whom violated the Debian mailing
> list rules. Of these two violations, why you chose to call out the
> innocuous one, for which a reasonable explanation was given, however
> misguided, while ignoring the morally serious infraction (rendering a
> private matter public), is left as the traditional exercise.

Since you are trying to turn this discussion into a trial against me, I
will clarify a few things.

I had forgotten that the mailing-list rules state clearly to complain in
private, and I have neglected this rule by mistake. I apologize for it.

Nonetheless, there are a few details in your accusations that need to be
set straight:

- The two rules are on exactly the same level in. You choose to call one
  innocuous and the other morally serious. This is your judgement, not
  universal. What we can objectively say is that one came first, and was
  deliberate.

- If you read carefully, I did not complain of being CCed. Anybody can
  forget to edit the headers before sending, I wound not have complained
  for so little. In fact, I did not complained, I advised:
  Ms Racicot-Summerside did not CC by mistake, she purposefully overrode
  a reply-to header, it is a mistake that can have more severe
  consequences than an extraneous CC, including replies getting lost or
  arriving where they should definitely not arrive. The purpose of my
  mail was not to complain, it was to advise.

I will ask you, if you want to continue piling accusations and reproach
over me, to at least have your facts straight.

That being said, I am sure I will now remember that this kind of mail is
to be sent in private, and I apologize again for forgetting and thus
wasting everybody's time in a useless discussion that has already been
too long.

My next mail in this thread will be to give an account of the
configuration of the printer, but it will have to wait a little that I
have upgraded the relevant host to Bullseye.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[Curt]

On 2021-08-12, Jonathan Dowland  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 12:36:46PM -, Curt wrote:
>>He was also quite wrong, which you fail to point out in all your
>>admirably enthusiastic rectitude
>
> I don't have the spoons to police every poster to the list. I'm fairly

Certainly. But you did volunteer to comment on a conflictual discussion
between a mere pair of users, both of whom violated the Debian mailing
list rules. Of these two violations, why you chose to call out the
innocuous one, for which a reasonable explanation was given, however
misguided, while ignoring the morally serious infraction (rendering a
private matter public), is left as the traditional exercise.

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 12:36:46PM -, Curt wrote:

He was also quite wrong, which you fail to point out in all your
admirably enthusiastic rectitude


I don't have the spoons to police every poster to the list. I'm fairly
sure I've gone a few rounds with Nicolas myself, in the past. If your
position is that we should either pull up everyone on rules or nobody, I
will have to disagree with you on grounds of pragmatism.

With respect to Polyna, she's a relatively new poster (thus can be
excused not knowing "how things work", or at least, "how things should
work"), relatively prolific (so the impact of mistakes is larger), and
I've made the effort to try and course-correct because I think
ultimately she can continue to be a net positive on the list.


--
Please do not CC me for listmail.

  Jonathan Dowland
✎j...@debian.org
   https://jmtd.net

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[Bob Bernstein]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021, Charles Curley wrote:


The signal to noise ratio is getting pretty bad around here.


"Around here?"

Every poster brings to the list a bit of the world-at-large as 
they are experiencing it. This occurs quite outside of conscious 
control. It is pre-reflective behaviour. Can't be helped but 
then again do we want to stamp out our connection to um reality, 
if you'll pardon the expression? It follows us through the door 
when we enter.


My $0.05. I'll just leave quietly now if that's ok with 
everybody.


--
...a society must incorporate the rationalizing
power symbolized by scientific knowledge, for
otherwise it will be a fatally split society-
split between a powerful elite and the
disenfranchised mass. To this we add now: an
irrational elite is the most dangerous of all.

Holton, Gerald. 1985. On the Integrity of
Science: The Issues Since Bronowski. Leonardo
18 (4), Special Issue: Jacob Bronowski: A
Retrospective (1985): 229-232.

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[Tony van der Hoff]

On 11/08/2021 12:25, Gene Heskett wrote:

On Wednesday 11 August 2021 04:02:14 Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside
wrote:



Debian is about choice Polyna. That is mine. Quit monopolizing the
conversation unless you are helping the user SOLVE his/her problem.


+1

--
Tony van der Hoff| mailto:t...@vanderhoff.org
Buckinghamshire, England |

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[Charles Curley]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 07:25:40 -0400
Gene Heskett  wrote:

> Speaking as one user who would like to see this list go back to being
> a place where howto questions are answered by folks with intimate 
> knowledge of how its done, an educational resource, ...

Hear, hear! Well and timely said, Gene.

The signal to noise ratio is getting pretty bad around here.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[tomas]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 06:07:21AM -0700, Peter Ehlert wrote:
> 
> On 8/11/21 5:02 AM, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 11/08/2021 12:25, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >>On Wednesday 11 August 2021 04:02:14 Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside
> >>wrote:
> >
> >>Debian is about choice Polyna. That is mine. Quit monopolizing the
> >>conversation unless you are helping the user SOLVE his/her problem.
> >>
> >+1
> >
> +1

-1

While I agreed with Gene's "roaring" characterisation, Polina /is/ helpful
in her posts, too. "Publically killfiling" bears a hostility which, to
me, seems unwarranted (and unnecessary). And jumping with lots of "+1" on
that, well. Not /my/ cup of tea.

Cheers
 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[tomas]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 12:23:53PM -, Curt wrote:
> On 2021-08-11,   wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 07:25:40AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> This is a mailing list, one I've been subbed to for at least a decade. It
> >> has rules, often violated without realizing it. You come roaring in here
> >
> > Agreed. Less roaring would be... nicer. For all of us :-)
> 
> My only objection is that the geometry, as they say in French, of who
> does and doesn't adhere to any given rule is totally variable.

Ah, géométrie variable :-) Yes, you are definitely right, especially 
wrt to a world-wide mailing list with as many subscribers as this.

> I recall
> vividly (and selectively, but memory can be like that) a quite long
> thread in which many of our venerable and often infuriatingly redundant
> dinosaurs participated concerning the Oberon mail client [...]

Yes, I dimly remember.

> What's good for the goose must be good for the gander, or it's no good
> at all.

It's difficult to set hard-and-fast rules. And soft rules do change
over time. Generous amounts of Postel's principle seem to be in
order -- or put another way: try to not assume malice. Try hard.

Most of the time "chastising", "warning" or "killfiling" would seem
too harsh to me. A friendly reminder, perhaps.

I try to make a rule for me that only when someone is insulting
someone else a limit is reached. And that I could be wrong in my
perception, so I'm strongly dependent on others to correct that.

What seems important to me is that, as cultural heterogeneity
here seems to be high [1], Postel's principle applies even more.

Cheers
 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[Dan Ritter]

Gene Heskett wrote: 
> Speaking as one user who would like to see this list go back to being a 
> place where howto questions are answered by folks with intimate 
> knowledge of how its done, an educational resource, even having healthy 
> arguments about methods because we are social creatures and enjoy our 
> interactions as a method of getting acquainted with our fellow man, 
> something I personally am in favor of, I am very close to writing 
> a .procmailrc rule, something I haven't resorted to in several years, 
> that will send your contentious, usually unhelpful emails to /dev/null.

May I suggest changing from procmail to the Courier maildrop filter
system? It doesn't require any other part of Courier to be
installed except an auth library, which apt will bring in.

A typical procmail recipe is... aggravating to interpret unless you've
been working with it recently. A mailfilter rule can be read and
understood and rewritten quite easily by someone who hasn't looked at
it in years:

if (/^From:.*deb...@polynamaude.com.*/:h)   
 
   to /home/dsr/Maildir/.spam/  

The only weird bit in there is the :h option, which means to
only look in headers, don't bother with the body. 

apt show maildrop

-dsr-

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[Peter Ehlert]

On 8/11/21 5:02 AM, Tony van der Hoff wrote:



On 11/08/2021 12:25, Gene Heskett wrote:

On Wednesday 11 August 2021 04:02:14 Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside
wrote:



Debian is about choice Polyna. That is mine. Quit monopolizing the
conversation unless you are helping the user SOLVE his/her problem.


+1


+1

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[Curt]

On 2021-08-11, Jonathan Dowland  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 04:02:14AM -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside 
> wrote:
>>Seems like kindness or understanding on the flexibility or some rules
>>are hard to understand.
>>
>>I've got told it is okay to act this way on this list because of the
>>number of user who post without being subscriber.
>
> I'm not sure who told you that either, but they are wrong. The mailing
> list rules say so (Nicolas quoted the relevant rule above and provided
> the URI).
>

He was also quite wrong, which you fail to point out in all your
admirably enthusiastic rectitude, because he himself violated the
following rule:

 If you want to complain to someone who sent you a carbon copy when you
 did not ask for it, do it privately.

I will also provide the URI for a more thorough perusal at your complete 
leisure,
friend.

https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/

*L'arroseur arrosé*, I guess you'd say. 

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[Curt]

On 2021-08-11,   wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 07:25:40AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> This is a mailing list, one I've been subbed to for at least a decade. It
>> has rules, often violated without realizing it. You come roaring in here
>
> Agreed. Less roaring would be... nicer. For all of us :-)

My only objection is that the geometry, as they say in French, of who
does and doesn't adhere to any given rule is totally variable. I recall
vividly (and selectively, but memory can be like that) a quite long
thread in which many of our venerable and often infuriatingly redundant
dinosaurs participated concerning the Oberon mail client (a completely
extraneous executable which hasn't been updated in 20 years, used by a
single Canadian holdout somewhere in the outback). But nobody was
chastised, warned, kill-filed (as far as we know), or any other freaking
thing because of it. 

What's good for the goose must be good for the gander, or it's no good
at all.

> Cheers
>  - t
>

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[tomas]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 07:25:40AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:

[...]

> This is a mailing list, one I've been subbed to for at least a decade. It 
> has rules, often violated without realizing it. You come roaring in here 
[...]

Agreed. Less roaring would be... nicer. For all of us :-)

Cheers
 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[Gene Heskett]

On Wednesday 11 August 2021 04:02:14 Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 2021-08-11 3:49 a.m., Cindy Sue Causey wrote:
> > On 8/11/21, Nicolas George  wrote:
> >> Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside (12021-08-11):
> >>> Sorry if this annoyed yourself but a long time Debian user of this
> >>> mailing list, who could also be considered "part of Debian" gave
> >>> me the hint of replying directly to the user when it comes to this
> >>> mailing list.
> >>
> >> That was wrong. Do not do it.
> >>
This is a mailing list, one I've been subbed to for at least a decade. It 
has rules, often violated without realizing it. You come roaring in here 
and have monopolized the conversation while actually supplying 
relatively little help to the list in terms of making their systems do 
what they want them to do, and do it securely.

Speaking as one user who would like to see this list go back to being a 
place where howto questions are answered by folks with intimate 
knowledge of how its done, an educational resource, even having healthy 
arguments about methods because we are social creatures and enjoy our 
interactions as a method of getting acquainted with our fellow man, 
something I personally am in favor of, I am very close to writing 
a .procmailrc rule, something I haven't resorted to in several years, 
that will send your contentious, usually unhelpful emails to /dev/null.

Debian is about choice Polyna. That is mine. Quit monopolizing the 
conversation unless you are helping the user SOLVE his/her problem.

> >> "When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a
> >> carbon copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly
> >> request to be copied."
> >>
> >> https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/
> >>
> >>> I am totally aware of the use of headers. I simply hit *reply* in
> >>> my mail client.
> >>
> >> Either you did something else for my e-mail or your mail client is
> >> bogus. I specifically configured my headers to avoid a double
> >> reply, the same way most mailing-lists are configured to do
> >> automatically.
> >
> > Gmail handled it properly just now...
>
> Well haven't you read what he said ?
> Gmail must be *wrong* because Nicolas George said "That was wrong".
>
> So this must be so bad and so painful to receive a message in his
> mailbox.
>
> Probably he doesn't know what's a forward or alias mailbox that you
> can destroy when tired of receiving email or simply ignoring a
> message.
>
> I delete at least 20 unwanted message a day, some are list that I'm
> registered to but not all messages are useful. And I don't make a case
> out of it.
>
> As I said in my message, I don't normally answer directly to messages
> but when it is a first time I exchange with a user, as I don't know if
> he's on the list or not (people can post without being registered).
> Then I'll send a CC message.
>
> Seems like kindness or understanding on the flexibility or some rules
> are hard to understand.
>
> I've got told it is okay to act this way on this list because of the
> number of user who post without being subscriber.
>
> I don't remember the name but it is the person who write the FAQ and
> post monthly reminder of the rules on this list. So I take his words
> as pretty much good.
>
> > Cindy :)

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page 

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 04:02:14AM -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote:

Seems like kindness or understanding on the flexibility or some rules
are hard to understand.

I've got told it is okay to act this way on this list because of the
number of user who post without being subscriber.


I'm not sure who told you that either, but they are wrong. The mailing
list rules say so (Nicolas quoted the relevant rule above and provided
the URI).

It's easy to make mistakes, and people who aren't used to mailing lists
might not know the conventions or how to use their tools properly, so
it's only reasonable for this rule to be lenient, to allow for beginners
to catch up and learn.

But once one knows the rules, and once one knows how to use the tools,
there's no excuse not to abide by the mailing list rules.


--
Please do not CC me for listmail.

  Jonathan Dowland
✎j...@debian.org
   https://jmtd.net

Re: End of the line [ was Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)]

[Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside]

Hi,

On 2021-08-11 4:01 a.m., Nicolas George wrote:
> Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside (12021-08-11):
>> Great for you, I find it rude and offensive.
>>
>> You may think it's wrong
> 
> I did not THINK it is wron, I quoted to you the rules of this mailing
> that state explicitly it is wrong.
> 
Rules don't cover all use case of life. And must be applied with some
judgements.

>> The first message I've answered you was sent in  CC, that's all.
> 
> So you DID override the reply-to header that I explicitly placed. You
> not only trampled the rules of this mailing-list, you also showed a
> gross misunderstanding of how e-mail work.
> 
I know how email work and maybe even better than you do.

What I did was chosen and done on purpose.

And I did explain to you why.

Which seem to be hard to understand.

Yes I did manually choose to press the button marked *reply* instead of
*reply list* and took the time to add *debian-user* as CC.

This was a deliberated choice.

Is your time so precious it's too much that seeing twice the same
message cost you that much ?

I've written in plain English that I did once for yourself and this
won't be repeated again. What do you ask for more ?

That I say "Sorry I did something wrong" ?

Because no I didn't.

In the last 3 months there was two persons for who I answered by CC and
said thanks when I explained why. They we're expecting the answer to
read on the web message archive. I told them to subscribe and easier it
will be for them.

Not because you are a *super geek* with the best knowledge that everyone
else has it. And for these person, I do a first CC, like it or not. If I
see the person answer back to my personal email then I explain, if she
answer on the list then I simply go on with *reply list*.

For the third time, hope you get it.

> Here, have the last word. Have all the last words for all I care.
> 

Sincerely, with much needed love

-- 
Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside
-Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside]

Hi,

On 2021-08-11 3:49 a.m., Cindy Sue Causey wrote:
> On 8/11/21, Nicolas George  wrote:
>> Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside (12021-08-11):
>>> Sorry if this annoyed yourself but a long time Debian user of this
>>> mailing list, who could also be considered "part of Debian" gave me the
>>> hint of replying directly to the user when it comes to this mailing list.
>>
>> That was wrong. Do not do it.
>>
>> "When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon
>> copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be
>> copied."
>>
>> https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/
>>
>>> I am totally aware of the use of headers. I simply hit *reply* in my
>>> mail client.
>>
>> Either you did something else for my e-mail or your mail client is
>> bogus. I specifically configured my headers to avoid a double reply, the
>> same way most mailing-lists are configured to do automatically.
> 
> 
> Gmail handled it properly just now...
Well haven't you read what he said ?
Gmail must be *wrong* because Nicolas George said "That was wrong".

So this must be so bad and so painful to receive a message in his mailbox.

Probably he doesn't know what's a forward or alias mailbox that you can
destroy when tired of receiving email or simply ignoring a message.

I delete at least 20 unwanted message a day, some are list that I'm
registered to but not all messages are useful. And I don't make a case
out of it.

As I said in my message, I don't normally answer directly to messages
but when it is a first time I exchange with a user, as I don't know if
he's on the list or not (people can post without being registered). Then
I'll send a CC message.

Seems like kindness or understanding on the flexibility or some rules
are hard to understand.

I've got told it is okay to act this way on this list because of the
number of user who post without being subscriber.

I don't remember the name but it is the person who write the FAQ and
post monthly reminder of the rules on this list. So I take his words as
pretty much good.

> 
> Cindy :)
> 

-- 
Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside
-Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: End of the line [ was Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)]

[Nicolas George]

Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside (12021-08-11):
> Great for you, I find it rude and offensive.
> 
> You may think it's wrong

I did not THINK it is wron, I quoted to you the rules of this mailing
that state explicitly it is wrong.

> The first message I've answered you was sent in  CC, that's all.

So you DID override the reply-to header that I explicitly placed. You
not only trampled the rules of this mailing-list, you also showed a
gross misunderstanding of how e-mail work.

Here, have the last word. Have all the last words for all I care.

-- 
  Nicolas George


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

End of the line [ was Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)]

[Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside]

Hi,

On 2021-08-11 3:41 a.m., Nicolas George wrote:
> Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside (12021-08-11):
>> Sorry if this annoyed yourself but a long time Debian user of this
>> mailing list, who could also be considered "part of Debian" gave me the
>> hint of replying directly to the user when it comes to this mailing list.
> 
> That was wrong. Do not do it. 
> 
Great for you, I find it rude and offensive.

You may think it's wrong, that your opinion. Now it's okay, go on and be
assured that I won't answer any of your message in the end.

If it's too hard for you to understand that I did it once to your user
as I've never exchanged message with you before. So I didn't know if you
were on the mailing list.
Now I got it for yourself.

And got a good idea of the type of reaction you do with all the kindness
toward people who may have a different view or action than you do. Maybe
in your world rules between human are the same as the ones for a
firewall but this ain't the case.

We, as human, have something call judgement.

> "When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon
> copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be
> copied."
> 
> https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/
> 
I am also totally aware of this rule and if you read my last message,
you'll notice that I specified conditions and reason why I did so. When
I know that a user is now on the mailing list, I'll simply hit "reply list".

Do I need to get back the thread where I was told it's appropriate for
this list ? And by someone who I'll consider having much more authority
than you could. As for myself, I've never exchanged with you.

>> I am totally aware of the use of headers. I simply hit *reply* in my
>> mail client.
> 
> Either you did something else for my e-mail or your mail client is
> bogus. I specifically configured my headers to avoid a double reply, the
> same way most mailing-lists are configured to do automatically.
> 

My email client is not bogus and you don't seem to understand well.
The first message I've answered you was sent in  CC, that's all.

If you got double reply, then just take a calculator and do the following.

Press 1 (this is for the direct reply)
Press *+* (we are adding)
Press 1 (this is for the copy of the message on the mailing list)
Press *=* (we want the result)
Play some nice Olympic anthem
And you'll see *2* this also means *double*

-- 
Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside
-Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[Cindy Sue Causey]

On 8/11/21, Nicolas George  wrote:
> Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside (12021-08-11):
>> Sorry if this annoyed yourself but a long time Debian user of this
>> mailing list, who could also be considered "part of Debian" gave me the
>> hint of replying directly to the user when it comes to this mailing list.
>
> That was wrong. Do not do it.
>
> "When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon
> copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be
> copied."
>
> https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/
>
>> I am totally aware of the use of headers. I simply hit *reply* in my
>> mail client.
>
> Either you did something else for my e-mail or your mail client is
> bogus. I specifically configured my headers to avoid a double reply, the
> same way most mailing-lists are configured to do automatically.


Gmail handled it properly just now...

Cindy :)
-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA
* runs with birdseed *

Reply configuration (was: All-in-One printer: HP OfficeJet 8012)

[Nicolas George]

Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside (12021-08-11):
> Sorry if this annoyed yourself but a long time Debian user of this
> mailing list, who could also be considered "part of Debian" gave me the
> hint of replying directly to the user when it comes to this mailing list.

That was wrong. Do not do it. 

"When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon
copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be
copied."

https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/

> I am totally aware of the use of headers. I simply hit *reply* in my
> mail client.

Either you did something else for my e-mail or your mail client is
bogus. I specifically configured my headers to avoid a double reply, the
same way most mailing-lists are configured to do automatically.

-- 
  Nicolas George


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature