Re: CC's on this mailing list

'Lars Wirzenius wrote:' > >Spam does make furious, extra Cc's from mailing lists don't. They >just annoy me (see signature), and in theory they do cost me a bit. >Not enough to make me worry about it, but enough to write kilobyte after >kilobyte about it. > >I do wish that people wouldn't Cc me whe

Re: CC's on this mailing list

Dale Scheetz writes ("Re: CC's on this mailing list"): ... > However, there are several people who post to the lists, but don't read > them, who ask to be responded to directly. Maybe we should just require > that these people suffer reading the lists like the rest of

Re: CC's on this mailing list

You (Bruce Perens) wrote: > About the funniest part is trying to find a pay phone. Many countries > only have them in post offices. When I visited Australia, there were > blue phones and gold phones, and only the gold ones could make long > distance calls. But when you have the right phone, and yo

Re: CC's on this mailing list

From: Miquel van Smoorenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > But when you have the right phone, and you know the trick with the > Follow button you can dial for free (even internationally!). If you get caught they are less likely to let you visit their country again :-) . I got a speeding ticket from the da

Re: CC's on this mailing list

From: Dan Stromberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 1) Have you switched up to a 28.8kbps modem yet, or at least a 14.4kbps > modem? We may be a bit spoiled here in the U.S. Some people have to buy their net service from a government-mandated monopoly, and pay by the packet. 28.8 modems are _illegal_ in so

Re: CC's on this mailing list

Mr Stuart Lamble wrote: > All very nice, but it dodges the major reason for people disliking duplicate > copies of messages: they pay for their PPP link (or UUCP feed, or whatever). > Identifying duplicates by their message IDs means that you have to download > both messages, unless you can do the

Re: CC's on this mailing list

I wrote earlier: > Indeed, but it's the principle that matters. Spam isn't costing me > all that much either, but I still get furious when I get it. Dirk pointed out that equating a couple of superfluous Cc's from debian-devel with spam isn't exactly polite. Sorry, I was writing too quickly again

Re: CC's on this mailing list

Bernd Eckenfels: > umm... I'm not going to bring calculation examples.. usually you wont notice > a few mails eighter in a uucp batch nor in ppp background transmission. Indeed, but it's the principle that matters. Spam isn't costing me all that much either, but I still get furious when I get it.

Re: CC's on this mailing list

Hi, > > All very nice, but it dodges the major reason for people disliking duplicate > > copies of messages: they pay for their PPP link (or UUCP feed, or whatever). > > I wasn't thinking about this. Good point. umm... I'm not going to bring calculation examples.. usually you wont notice a few

Re: CC's on this mailing list

Dale Scheetz: > In fact it would be nice if this message didn't go to > you twice, but I don't see any easy way to avoid this, Um, you can't just remove Ian as a receiver, given that he reads the list? Or am I confused again? -- Rural sizes win <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pleas

Re: CC's on this mailing list

> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In fact it would be nice if this message didn't go to you twice, but > > I don't see any easy way to avoid this, short of writing more > > functionality into the list manager. > > I may have already said this, but for those interested, gnus will >

Re: CC's on this mailing list

[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In fact it would be nice if this message didn't go to you twice, but ... > > I may have already said this, but for those interested, gnus will > generally remove duplicates for you if you want it to. It keeps a > cache of i

Re: CC's on this mailing list

> "IJ" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It would be nice also to not have long messages fully quoted :-( IJ> Right, this is going into the policy manual. Please put also something about long signatures (> 4 lines) or signatures whose first line is not "-- ". Ciao, Emilio. --

Re: CC's on this mailing list

On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, Ian Jackson wrote: > I'm considering adding a paragraph to the policy manual telling people > not to CC each other when replying to messages on debian-devel. > > Is it the consensus of the list that this would be a good idea ? > It would certainly keep the multiplicity of mes

Re: CC's on this mailing list

> > If it is relavent to me specifically (eg. relates to one of my packages), > > then I like being copied because it means I won't miss it in the volume > > of the list. > > Is it because you filter to mail folders depending on the To: field (the > only reason I see that would make the message

Re: CC's on this mailing list

Brian C. White writes: > > I'm considering adding a paragraph to the policy manual telling people > > not to CC each other when replying to messages on debian-devel. > > > > Is it the consensus of the list that this would be a good idea ? > > If it is relavent to me specifically (eg. relates

Re: CC's on this mailing list

Yves Arrouye: > Then actually it makes it hard in these mailes to reply to just the > list. It's easy to delete addresses, difficult to copy them. Whether public or private replies are more common depends on the writer, not the list. I make a fair number of private answers. Checking your To and

Re: CC's on this mailing list

You (Yves Arrouye) wrote: > Ian Jackson writes: > > Miquel van Smoorenburg writes ("Re: CC's on this mailing list"): > > ... > > > I've noticed on some other lists that everything that is posted on the > > > list has From: set to the origina

Re: CC's on this mailing list

Ian Jackson writes: > Miquel van Smoorenburg writes ("Re: CC's on this mailing list"): > ... > > I've noticed on some other lists that everything that is posted on the > > list has From: set to the original sender, Reply-To: to the list address > >

Re: CC's on this mailing list

Yves Arrouye writes ("CC's on this mailing list"): > Ian Jackson writes: > > I'm considering adding a paragraph to the policy manual telling people > > not to CC each other when replying to messages on debian-devel. > > > > Is it the conse

Re: CC's on this mailing list

> I'm considering adding a paragraph to the policy manual telling people > not to CC each other when replying to messages on debian-devel. > > Is it the consensus of the list that this would be a good idea ? It's a difficult call. Quite often I get copies of mail simply because I posted the msg b

Re: CC's on this mailing list

Miquel van Smoorenburg writes ("Re: CC's on this mailing list"): ... > I've noticed on some other lists that everything that is posted on the > list has From: set to the original sender, Reply-To: to the list address > and Cc: deleted. > > This is actually ver

Re: CC's on this mailing list

You (Ian Jackson) wrote: > I'm considering adding a paragraph to the policy manual telling people > not to CC each other when replying to messages on debian-devel. > > Is it the consensus of the list that this would be a good idea ? I've noticed on some other lists that everything that is posted

CC's on this mailing list

Ian Jackson writes: > I'm considering adding a paragraph to the policy manual telling people > not to CC each other when replying to messages on debian-devel. > > Is it the consensus of the list that this would be a good idea ? It would be nice also to not have long messages fully quoted :-(

Re: CC's on this mailing list

Ian Jackson: > I'm considering adding a paragraph to the policy manual telling people > not to CC each other when replying to messages on debian-devel. > > Is it the consensus of the list that this would be a good idea ? See signature. Actually, not Cc:ing should be the default for all people on

CC's on this mailing list

I'm considering adding a paragraph to the policy manual telling people not to CC each other when replying to messages on debian-devel. Is it the consensus of the list that this would be a good idea ? Ian.