John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am on dozens of mailing lists. There are thousands of participants on > this list alone. I subscribe to, and leave, mailing lists all the time. > Why should a person with a personal preference expect me to shoulder the > burden of maintaining a mental list of that, when it's within his power > to express his preference in a way that mail readers understand > automatically?
On Debian lists the desire for no Ccs is not a personal preference but it is the default. Only if you want a Cc you should say so. This is what the CoC says. If you don't agree with that - change it. But don't just ignore it. Decent MUAs can be configured to send followups to the list only and just Do The Right Thing. > > The same goes for the Debian CoC. I agree with Wouter on this. The CoC > is at odds with the desires expressed in the mail headers. In my view a missing mail header doesn't express any desire. > > Reply-To has been around since at least RFC822 (1982), and the person > that wants to avoid personal CCs could use it. It is standard and it is > widely supported. There are people who distinguish between followups and replies. There Reply-To is not a perfect solution either. > > There are, of course, problems with it. Mail-Followup-To is also a > defacto standard (note that RFC is not the only way for a standard to > occur; HTML, for instance, was a standard long before it got an RFC). > Many mail clients do the right thing when they see it, and that is > especially true here. > > If the person with the complaint had used this, he would have been > fine. My MUA sets MFT but I still get a number of Ccs. Fact is that MFT is not implemented in every MUA or is disabled by default. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
