Re: [exim] conducive.org

David Woodhouse wrote:

> On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 05:18 +0800, W B Hacker wrote:
>
>>Usually only those who 'CC:' everyone they reply to, thereby doubling
>>the traffic.
>
>
> Which I believe is actually how I ended up in your blacklist too, rather
> than sender verification failures.

Correct. I sent you a who-struck-John note on that off-list, but it dd not get
through. Logs showed greylisting.

Not asking to change that on my account, but the old silently try-for-days
is not apppropriate to modern business users. They need to know within
*minutes* if the mail was not delivered so they can fall-back to phone or fax.

>
> Opinions are divided on that topic, and I'm firmly in the _other_ camp.
> If you're posting a response to something I've said, then I consider it
> extremely impolite to drop my address from Cc.
>

I see the merit in each, and don't have a strong 'opinion' either way.
The two problesm it creates for me are storage-waste over time and the inability
to distinguish between off-list and on-list incoming *unless* the 'Subject:'
header has '[exim]' removed, at which point it will both be obvious and in
diferent folders.

> I subscribe to many mailing lists, and I don't pay _that_ much attention
> to all of them, all of the time. If I am participating in a thread, I
> really do want the responses landing in my inbox where I'll see them,
> rather than in a mailing list folder which I don't see for days or weeks
> at a time.
>

Understood.

> Although I happen to be subscribed to the list on which I occasionally
> communicate with _you_, I also participate in many other mailing lists
> from time to time, without subscribing to each. The problem of list
> replies not landing in my inbox is even worse in that situation, because
> I don't receive them at _all_.
>

Agreed. Many lists just have too high a traffic rate to comfortably remain
susbscribed to.

> The failure mode if you fail to Cc me is that you will cut me out of the
> conversation -- I may not see your response at all, or not until it's
> too late to sensibly respond. On the other hand, the failure mode if you
> _do_ Cc someone who didn't really want it is that they see a second copy
> of the email. I consider one of those to be more of a 'failure' than the
> other.

IF I could remember to CC: certain key folks, there might be a solution. But I
figure the list is archived quite nicely, [1] so er the other direction.

FWIW, my practice of *locally* archiving is primarily to allow me to apply
broader searches with tools I am more accustomed to.

>
> Obviously it's unrealistic to expect that people will know the desires
> of their correspondent and Cc accordingly. A solution like
> Mail-Followup-To: would be nice but doesn't seem to be widespread enough
> to be particularly useful. So I default to Ccing you, and I'm afraid I
> don't really make any apology for it.
>

None expected. I'm sure we'll all get along well enough.

As to the blocking - I'll see if I can do that a bit more intelligently -
perhaps in the MUA.

The only tool I am *certain* could handle it would be to re-subscribe with an
Ecartis list address, which I can do easily enough.

On 'incoming' from Exim, the 'no duplicates' should handle your CC:, giving me
just one.

On outgoing, I could, over time, add, for example both exim and your address,
with a filter that only sent posts to you IF you appeared in a prior header.

ISTR seeing headers that indicate at least a few folks here do something like
that already.

Best,

Bill