Yep, reply to all, since that's what the list now asks for. I'd like you all to participate in this message storm.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Marc MERLIN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:30:02AM +0100, "Beerse, Corni" wrote: > > Is it already changed, did you a reply to all or something > else phony? > > You can answer that by looking at the headers of the mail. > I do not reply to a list with 'r' ever, I always reply to > all. If I were > to try to figure out which list does munging and which > one doesn't, > that's be very confusing to change my reply habits accordingly. > Reply should always go to the author of the Email (only). > I get upset > when a list tries to hijack a personal reply and sent it > to the list > (which is what reply-to does), so I have my system ignore it > for lists. So it was you that spoils the bandwidth. > > > > Please, before anyone continues to argue, go read: > > > > http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=6693&group_id=1 > > > > Do you have more of those documents? It starts with "The > content within this > > document is not necessarily up-to-date. Please watch for an > updated version > > of this document to appear in coming weeks. (2002-05-18)". > I regard it is > > now way beyond the comming weeks after 18 may 2002 (25 weeks ago...) > > Please ignore that. The reasons for the above message > are not too > relevant to the content and would bore people. No, if those messages are on webpages, I always take them serious, specially if they are at the top so everyone starts reading them. I regard this page as way-out-of-date: They prommise to update and they have not so I expect them to have change thoughts. (or have they put the update at an other location?) > For that matter, I promised I would not spam the list > about endless > discussions on this, so I won't, sorry but I'll skip > arguing your > points, trust me it could have gone back and forth a while. > (but if you wanted to Email me and continue privately, > honestly, > outside of technical questions on removing dupes for > instance, I'm not > interested: you may be debating this for the first time, but > on my side, > I've lost count, and I've seem this debate and > participated here and > there for more than 5 years now...) Are you only 5 years on the net? Have you moved in after M$ B.Gates? That explanes a lot. > > > I like to add here, in the current world of mail spam, I > don't like my email > > address to be send to everyone on every list. If it is > possible I'd like my > > address stripped from the header if it goes trough a > maillist. It would at > > least be nice if it is an option. > > If you get Cced on an answer, it's typically because you > posted first, > so you've already been harvested. moot point. > (that said, mailman 2.1 beta can remove you from the > Cc before > rebroadcasting the mail to the list, but that's only to avoid > an endless > growing Cc list, not for spam reasons) That's still in beta, the maillistserver does (should) not use beta software. Then, who handles the option? > > > > With this version of mailman it means the sender may get > two copies > > > of the answer, but there are some ways to solve > this minor > > > inconvenience (see the URL above) and a mailman > upgrade can take > > > care of that too. > > > > All involving mangling the subscription list on a > per-mail base, > > resulting in loss of messages, mainly to addresses > directly involved > > in the discussion taking place. Hence better not do such things. > > No. The options are: > 1) you remove dupe messages by Message Id on your side You know what I have to do to handle messages headers with M$OutLook? (yep, I'm forced to use that at my employers, sorry) > 2) the list sees you are already Cced and doesn't send you > the list copy > (mailman 2.1 beta does that) That is not acceptable: messages are (a.o.) moved to mailboxes by the origionator of the message. There is a sure difference between direct from the origionator and by means of the maillist. > > > I know situations where it is not allowed (and in the > system restricted) to > > send messages to just anyone on the internet. Target > addresses of mail > > In 8 years of being a sysadmin, I've never ever seen or heard of that. > Not to say it can't exist, but it surely isn't widespread. > (and just to say I have a little experience with mailing > lists and that > at least I know the technicalities behind this discussion, > I've admined > 25,000 lists with about 300,000 subscribers, and > contributed code to mailman) For example, a friend of mine, she is working at a lawyer-office. All mail is scanned for legal matter. The first step is automatic, based on the addressees. There is a white-list and it must pass for all addresses or it will not pass at all. CBee _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
