Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(February 2003)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS
From: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:51:26 -0800
To: Nick Simicich <njs @ scifi . squawk . com>
Cc: list-managers @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: Message from Nick Simicich <njs @ scifi . squawk . com> of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 05:37:50 EST." <5 . 1 . 0 . 14 . 2 . 20030225052754 . 4b2fe140 @ 199 . 74 . 151 . 1>
References: <20030224113904 . GA4646 @ gsp . org> <5 . 1 . 0 . 14 . 2 . 20030225052754 . 4b2fe140 @ 199 . 74 . 151 . 1>

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 05:37:50 -0500
Nick Simicich <njs @
 scifi .
 squawk .
 com> wrote:
> At 07:38 AM 2003-02-24 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:

> How many times are we going to have this conversation?  As I recally,
> you also wanted it in red Helvetivca, at least 30 point.  Eventually
> you cried uncle when I delivered.  The other point is that the real
> problem is that the people (misguided individual?) who originally put
> forth the concept that lists should not mung Reply-To is responsible
> for the reply-to-all header expansion --- and that instead of doing
> that, they should have written an alteration to RFC822, back long
> enough ago to where mailing list managers would have done the right
> thing.

Sure, its called the List-Post header from RFC 2369.  Its even been
around for a while.

> Instead they wrote unmitigated drivel like "reply to munging
> considered harmful" and we have what we have what we have today.

<sigh> Having run multiple lists of the both forms for almost 10 years
for each I'll merely observe that non-reply-to munging lists *tend* to
work better.

> 95% plus of the people who get this mail do not want the extra copy,
> they want the list copy.  You are part of the 5%.  What Rich, and I,
> and 19 out of 20 want is the norm.

There are two audiences of interest in that decision: The entire
population of the list, and the much much smaller population who
actively forward or contribute toward the purposes of the list.  I
largely ignore the first audience -- they're nice to have around, but
they do nothing for me.  The second audience conversely I can and do
bend over backwards for, and the second audience is also the one (for
me) that most tends to use mail filtering and structured patterns and
methods of handling mail traffic (much as Chuq described and I use
myself), and, again, for those reasons, tend to request or want
duplicate mail copies.

I'm not about to dumb down my mail systems to serve those who don't add
value.

> Please ignore Chuq: He is not serious when he claims he wants private
> copies.

Codswhallop.  He's also not nearly alone.

--
J C Lawrence
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw @
 kanga .
 nu               He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.


References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS
From: Vivek Khera <khera @ kcilink . com>
Next: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS
From: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Godwin's Law... and more
From: Alan B Clegg <alan @ clegg . com>
Next: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS LIST
From: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com