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: Nick Simicich <njs @ scifi . squawk . com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:20:07 -0500
To: list-managers @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: <9E63ECAE-48D6-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8 @ plaidworks . com>
References: <5 . 1 . 0 . 14 . 2 . 20030225052754 . 4b2fe140 @ 199 . 74 . 151 . 1>

At 07:34 AM 2003-02-25 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:

On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 02:37  AM, Nick Simicich 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.

18, and no, I didn't. I simply read it when you sent it until you stopped.

I remembered you asking me to stop as an aside to some other message. I can't find the message. I did find the 18 point message. I will assume you are right and that I imagined it.

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

Please ignore Nick. he's lying. again.

Yep, my comment was uncalled for, and rude. It was based on my faulty memory and I apologize for it. Chuq really does want the extra copies.

However, I still assert that it is rude to send (or cause to be sent) multiple copies of the same e-mail to people who have not specifically said that they want them. It is much easier for those people to generate the extra copies that they want in their own in boxes and to flag the mail (provided that people do not mung the References: lines) than it is for other people to delete the extra copies, especially since the mailing list copies are likely to arrive slower than the direct copies and all that. Your assertion that it is up to people to fix their own incoming mail rings like the spammer (although your mail is not spam, it just rings the same way) who says, "Well, who cares how many copies I send you, if you don't want to read the 20 copies of the spam I sent you to all of your aliases and role accounts, you should just delete it. Just delete it, what is the big deal.")

It is especially rude for a couple of people to assert that because they want extra copies of mail that it is right to bombard people who have said that they do not with extra copies of mail, or that it is normal or acceptable to not fix up headers as a matter of course to delete extra recipients.

The claim that "people can fix up their incoming mail" is akin to but opposite of a reasonable position that I believed you took regarding e-postage. It is interesting for people to build these houses of cards regarding these mail complexities, but when challenged to make them work, it frequently ends up being just hand-waving and vast complexity --- these things are not as simple as they seem.

As I searched my mail logs, I noted that any conversation I was in with you had the same pieces of mail repeated twice. I got the ones from the mailing list, which I signed up for, and the ones from you, whether or not you were replying directly to me.

I thought about the problems with "undelivering" the mail I might have gotten and mis-filed which came directly from you when the mailing list mail came in. I guess that if my mail backing store was a database and I was simply able to move the entries from table to table (or more likely, to fix up the pointer records as the duplicate mail arrived) it would be possible. And, of course, as we know well, just because the mail had the same message id does not mean that the mail is interchangeable.

I came to the conclusion that your assertion that someone could fix up their inbox based on mail arrival from multiple sources was interesting but impractical. It is, of course, easy to filter individual messages as they arrive, but it is somewhat harder to filter based on messages that have arrived, and at least an order of magnitude harder to filter based on messages that have not yet arrived, which is what I would actually have to do to implement your suggestion.

The right thing to do is to not get the extra copies of the mail in the first place. (The implementation that MJ2 does, to not send copies through the mailing list when the mail has the potential recipient in the headers is borked. The mail ends up not being filed in the mailbox with the threads (unless one puts mail into mailing list threads based on the assertion that someone else sent it there...whether or not it actually is accepted and delivered by the mailing list manager. I get way too much mail to want to break conversations across mailboxes.)

In any case, I assert that all polite people should ignore you and fix all headers not to send extra private copies when they send responses. You can do what you want.

The fact that you want extra copies should not stop people from doing the right thing.

--
SPAM: Trademark for spiced, chopped ham manufactured by Hormel.
spam: Unsolicited, Bulk E-mail, where e-mail can be interpreted generally to mean electronic messages designed to be read by an individual, and it can include Usenet, SMS, AIM, etc. But if it is not all three of Unsolicited, Bulk, and E-mail, it simply is not spam. Misusing the term plays into the hands of the spammers, since it causes confusion, and spammers thrive on confusion. Spam is not speech, it is an action, like theft, or vandalism. If you were not confused, would you patronize a spammer?
Nick Simicich - njs @
scifi .
squawk .
com - http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html
Stop by and light up the world!


Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: false positives - junkmail
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>
Next: Re: false positives - junkmail
From: Mitch Collinsworth <mitch @ ccmr . cornell . edu>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>
Next: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com