On Mon, 19 May 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 07:14:10AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> The solution to this problem is to fix the mailing list code of conduct
> >> to stop creating this expectation. We don't enforce it anyway, an
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Codes of conduct usually have consequences for violating them, which
> this clearly doesn't (other than sparking 40-post threads every
> couple of months and annoyed paragraphs at the top of replies that
> people generally ignore anyway).
Again, my exper
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 07:14:10AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The solution to this problem is to fix the mailing list code of conduct
>> to stop creating this expectation. We don't enforce it anyway, and all
>> this provision seems to do in practice is
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 01:23:25PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 07:21:29PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Of course, MFT brings up the whole "it's not a standard, why should I
> > follow it, my MUA never heard of it" thing... You can't win.
> Our code of conduct has the s
* Martin Langhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080518 22:02]:
> In this modern age of a mailman that lets subscribers configure their
> subscription to avoid duplicates, and procmail filters that help do
> the same at the client end (and some mail clients that have similar
> abilities of their own - ie gma
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 07:21:29PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 06:08:23PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> > public list that end up in their main INBOX. If those can't make the
> > effort to setup Mail-Followup-To, they should post less and not _more_
> > just for the sake
Mark Brown wrote:
public list that end up in their main INBOX. If those can't make the
effort to setup Mail-Followup-To, they should post less and not _more_
just for the sake of complaining about the copies.
Of course, MFT brings up the whole "it's not a standard, why should I
follow it,
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Ben Finney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not interested in receiving them in my email. I participate in the
> Debian mailing lists via a non-email interface, which makes it much
> more manageable. (For me, that is. I don't expect everyone to follow
> my habits i
"Martin Langhoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Ben Finney
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Because I've configured all of the above, and *still* get
> > individual copies of messages that were sent to the list. I'm not
> > subscribed to the Debian mailing lists,
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Ben Finney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because I've configured all of the above, and *still* get individual
> copies of messages that were sent to the list. I'm not subscribed to
> the Debian mailing lists, so there is no "duplicate" that can be
> detected by such
"Martin Langhoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In this modern age of a mailman that lets subscribers configure their
> subscription to avoid duplicates, and procmail filters that help do
> the same at the client end (and some mail clients that have similar
> abilities of their own - ie gmail)...
Jose Luis Rivas Contreras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe it could be easier that the mailing list software left the
> mailing list in the reply-header. The main issue is that when you
> hit "Reply" the only one who is left in the headers is actually who
> sent the email and if you hit "Re
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 07:03:39PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> I am posting far too much in this thread.
Do you say that because you got too many Cc's ?
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOO
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clint Adams wrote:
>> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 06:35:20PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>>> Wrong. You neglected to request to be CCed.
>>
>> My M-F-T was clearly a request to be Cc'd.
>
> Which possibly only goes to show how broken t
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 07:31:37PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> I agree it has been controversial. However, "wrong" is just your opinion.
> My opinion is that it is "right" for Debian's lists.
My preference for a default is to suggest that everyone always Cc unless
otherwise requested. Note that I d
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 06:08:23PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> public list that end up in their main INBOX. If those can't make the
> effort to setup Mail-Followup-To, they should post less and not _more_
> just for the sake of complaining about the copies.
Of course, MFT brings up the whole
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 07:14:10AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The solution to this problem is to fix the mailing list code of conduct to
> stop creating this expectation. We don't enforce it anyway, and all this
> provision seems to do in practice is create these annoying arguments
> periodical
Clint Adams wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 06:35:20PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>> Wrong. You neglected to request to be CCed.
>
> My M-F-T was clearly a request to be Cc'd.
Which possibly only goes to show how broken that header is. you could have
noted the request to be CCed in the body of the
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 06:35:20PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Wrong. You neglected to request to be CCed.
My M-F-T was clearly a request to be Cc'd.
> That's bullshit. The CoC has been in place and unchanged for years. Please
Yes, and it has been controversial and WRONG for years.
> check the o
Clint Adams wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 05:21:52PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>> Clint Adams sent a request to d-www to have the CoC changed and I have
>> replied with a strong NACK to that suggestion. If the CoC should be
>
> You neglected to Cc me.
Wrong. You neglected to request to be CCed.
On Sun, 18 May 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Your mail message individually to me is not wanted, and I have a
> > reasonable expectation through the mailing list code of conduct *and*
> > through my explicit request that you not send it.
>
> The solution
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 03:30:47PM +, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 01:26:29 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Vincent Bernat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Another solution on your side is to use Mail-Followup-To.
> > > [...]
> > > Most mailers comply with this heade
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 05:21:52PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Clint Adams sent a request to d-www to have the CoC changed and I have
> replied with a strong NACK to that suggestion. If the CoC should be
You neglected to Cc me.
> changed, it should be done after a proper discussion (on d-project
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 01:26:29 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Vincent Bernat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Another solution on your side is to use Mail-Followup-To.
> > [...]
> > Most mailers comply with this header.
>
> That field is non-standard, and there are many MUAs that don't obey
>
* Jose Luis Rivas Contreras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080518 17:27]:
> I believe it could be easier that the mailing list software left the
> mailing list in the reply-header. The main issue is that when you hit
> "Reply" the only one who is left in the headers is actually who sent the
> email and if yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frans Pop wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
>> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> We don't enforce it anyway, and all this provision seems to do in
>>> practice is create these annoying arguments periodically.
>> No, that's not all it does. It also
Vincent Bernat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Another solution on your side is to use Mail-Followup-To.
> [...]
> Most mailers comply with this header.
That field is non-standard, and there are many MUAs that don't obey
it. It's not much of a solution if I can't expect it to be applied
consiste
Ben Finney wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We don't enforce it anyway, and all this provision seems to do in
>> practice is create these annoying arguments periodically.
>
> No, that's not all it does. It also has the significant effect that
> discussions in these forums do no
OoO En ce début d'après-midi ensoleillé du dimanche 18 mai 2008, vers
15:56, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disait:
> Then please have it reduce your rudeness, and comply with explicit
> requests both from me and the ML CoC: stop sending unwanted mail
> messages when the messages are already se
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Your mail message individually to me is not wanted, and I have a
> > reasonable expectation through the mailing list code of conduct
> > *and* through my explicit request that you not send it.
>
> The solutio
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your mail message individually to me is not wanted, and I have a
> reasonable expectation through the mailing list code of conduct *and*
> through my explicit request that you not send it.
The solution to this problem is to fix the mailing list code of con
31 matches
Mail list logo
