Philip Hazel wrote:
> You may not believe it, but there *are* people in the world who *do* want
> personal CCs of replies to their list postings. (One prominent poster on
> the 822 list files them separately, and he wants to get both copies. He
> mutters when people do not cc him.)
I do believe it. And on every other list I'm on it is list policy that
people who want CCs request it. This is so the overall traffic is reduced
since the default which works for the majority is, by and large, list replies
only. Is that not how the axiom "Be conservative in what you send, liberal in
what you receive" would denote? Send only what you need (list reply) and
extra if requested (CC).
> This is an area where one tends to get damned whatever you do. There was a
> recent long discussion about Reply-To: and proposed new headers such as
> Mail-Followup-To: that might do a better job. The trouble is that there are
> many scenarios (e.g. one message posted to multiple lists and also cc'd to
> several people) where the new proposals just don't work well enough in
> enough common cases.
Uhm, no, that would be an uncommon case. I get several hundred list
messages a day here and have done so over hundreds of lists going back the
past dozen+ years. Guess what the common case is. Replies to the list.
Guess what the exception, by far, has been. Replies to list with CCs to a
sender to wants it (for whatever reason), Multiple list replies and replies to
multiple lists with CCs requested... in that order.
> All we have at the moment is Reply-To. The best advice is for people who do
> not want cc's to set it to the list. Most of the time that is likely to
> achieve what they want.
Ah, yes. I've heard this argument before. Let me remember where. Oops,
I do. Spammers. "If you don't want our mail, just opt-out." "If you don't
want our mail, just set reply-to." Yup, same thing.
> That was childish (setting it to dot@???, Tony's address). Please try
> to keep this (very busy) list at a reasonable level of behaviour.
I don't think it was childish. That's where I wanted further replies to
go. Obviously me setting reply-to wasn't the appropriate answer, was it? If
you, and others, aren't going to honor the Reply-To then clearly it isn't
going to work, now is it? Furthermore, as Nigel has pointed out, there are
possible legal ramifications to setting Reply-to. That alone should be a
clear case that list policy needs to be altered to CCs discouraged until
requested since the supposed "acceptable" method is not acceptable at all.
I think my point's been made that such an answer is childish to give when
one can simply modify one's own behavior to not inconvenience others with
their laziness.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
