David Woodhouse wrote:
> FSVO 'spamming'. In particular for a meaning of 'spamming' which
> includes merely causing them to receive an extra copy of a mail which is
> descended from one of their _own_ posts. A copy which many people do
> actually _want_, and which others can fairly easily filter out if it
> really does offend them.
They do? You're psychic now? I got plenty of CCs to my postings here
even though I didn't want them. Also "fairly easily filter out" is a nice
diversion but is false. The fact is that unless people are maintaining a
database of MSGIDs it is not easy to filter out. Furthermore since direct
messages more often than not beat the list message (even if by seconds) if one
is tracking by MSGID and filtering it means the list message is the one
filtered and that breaks any threading that may occur.
> My assertion is that this 'spamming', if that's what you wish to call
> it, is far less evil than deliberately omitting a participant who
> _wishes_ to remain active, but cannot unless you do them the courtesy of
> including them in the discussion.
If they wish to remain active they can read the list. My not CCing them
does not prevent them from remaining active. If they want to remain active it
is up to *THEM* to do so; not to me to provide a CC because they might need it
and might wish to remain active. You'll note that I've not CC'd you and you
certainly have remained active, no?
CCs should not be the norm. on mailing lists. The whole point of the
mailing list is to avoid the many problems associated with large discussions.
1: CCs require each sender to send out large volumes of mail. The list means
that only one location sends out large volumes and that location is willingly
doing it.
2: In large discussions with many different participants the CC list can grow
quite large. Imagine a heated discussion where every person submitted a
reply. It is possible that late in the discussion people were CCing everyone
on the list. The what would be the point of the list?
3: Being on a mailing list means that when you want off the list you can just
unsubscribe. Being on a CC list means that as long as the discussion is going
in any particular portion for which you've contributed you cannot effectively
get out of the discussion if you so choose because even if you conviuce person
A to remove you from the CC list that doesn't preclude persons B, C and D to
leave on their replies or E, F, G from the replies to B, C and D and then A
again in reply to E.
> That assumption is sometimes true -- but it is not _always_ true. They
> may _not_ be subscribed to the list
The list is viewable elsewhere.
> and if subscribed they may not be actively reading it.
If it were an important issue they should be. If it isn't then who are
you to say that you have the right to clutter their inbox on the off-chance
they might need the answer RIGHT NOW instead of 30 seconds from RIGHT NOW.
> And even if they are reading it they may well
> prefer, as I do, to receive a direct response too.
Then that should be explicitly stated by the people who want such a
response. It has been my experience on high and low volume lists I've
participated in as well as the several low to medium volume lists I've run
that people who prefer CCs to list mail are very few and far between.
> Whichever you do by default, you're going to make _someone_ unhappy
> occasionally if you don't know their preference.
The difference is that by not CCing you're not sending extra cruft to
someone. On the flipside the person who wants the CC can always ask, read the
list or view it from the archives. Sending mail to someone who doesn't want
it is more harmful in my eyes than not sending mail to someone who is
perfectly capable of reading the response via multiple means.
> If you include the previous poster(s) in the recipients, they can easily
> filter out the duplicates if they so desire -- it's not really much of a
> problem for them if they prefer to receive only one copy.
Really? Describe how to prevent duplicates with Outlook or Thunderbird
or a Mac client. Now describe how to do it without breaking threading. Now,
here's the kick in the nads, explain how your justification is any different
than a spammers. "Well, they can always just delete my messages if they don't
want them."
> If you _omit_ the previous poster(s), then some people just aren't going
> to see your response to their post.
That is their problem, not mine. Nothing, absolutely nothing is
preventing them from being subscribed or reading from the archives.
> That is a failure mode which they
> _cannot_ work around; you are simply refusing to allow them to
> participate in the discussion any further.
Explain given the above. they can work around it. They can subscribe.
They can read the archives.
> Because of this, I find it highly inconsiderate for people to
> deliberately drop me from the recipients when they reply to me.
Then I'm a rude bastard, sorry. But I see no failure on your part to
participate. Kind of makes your above point moot.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
