Subject: CC's on this mailing list

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 96 23:54 BST

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.

---

From: Lars Wirzenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 06:05:28 +0300

> 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 all lists.
For those who don't know, Cc means carbon copy, not courtesy copy.

And having the list server put in a Reply-to to the list is the wrong
answer, because it makes it more difficult to reply to one person instead
of the list in many MUA's.

-- 
Lars Wirzenius <[email-masked]> <http://www.iki.fi/liw/>
Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list.

---

From: Yves Arrouye <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 11:20:10 +0200

> 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 :-(

Also, could it be possible to arrange so that when we do a reply on
this list (or other debian lists), it goes to

	[email-masked]

and not to the mail author? This would help a lot.

Yves.

---

From: Miquel van Smoorenburg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 15:33:11 +0200 (MET DST)

> 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 on the
list has From: set to the original sender, Reply-To: to the list address
and Cc: deleted.

This is actually very nice. Would it be hard (or just a bad idea) to
put this in the debian list server?

Mike.
-- 
  Miquel van    | Cistron Internet Services   --    Alphen aan den Rijn.
  Smoorenburg,  | mailto:[email-masked]          http://www.cistron.nl/
[email-masked] | Tel: +31-172-419445 (Voice) 430979 (Fax) 442580 (Data)

---

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 96 16:40 BST

Miquel van Smoorenburg writes ("Re: CC's on this mailing list"):
...
> put this in the debian list server?

This makes it hard in some mailers to reply to just the poster.

Ian.

---

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 96 17:24 BST

> It would be nice also to not have long messages fully quoted :-(

Right, this is going into the policy manual.

Ian.

---

From: Yves Arrouye <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 12:52:39 +0200

> This makes it hard in some mailers to reply to just the poster.

Then actually it makes it hard in these mailes to reply to just the
list. Since the bulk of the list is made of public discussions done
by replying to it, this may be a good reason to have it be the default.
After all, if you want to just reply to the author, you have to do
something more complicated once, and after that you reply to him normally
during the private discussion. With the actual scheme, the complicated
thing must be done each time you want to make a public answer.

Yves.

---

From: Miquel van Smoorenburg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 13:43:09 +0200 (MET DST)

> thing must be done each time you want to make a public answer.

That's how I feel too, but you said it better than I could.

Mike.

---

From: Lars Wirzenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 18:41:34 +0300

Yves Arrouye:
> 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 Cc is just the same as checking your Newsgroups line.
You _must_ do it, whether there is a Reply-to or not. Basic courtesy and
self-preservation.

I fear there is no objectively best answer for this problem. Perhaps
mail needs a Followup-to header.

I've been on lists that have a Reply-to to the list. It's horrible enough
that it actually deters me from replying at all.

---

From: Dale Scheetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:45:45 -0400 (EDT)

> Is it the consensus of the list that this would be a good idea ?
It would certainly keep the multiplicity of messages down to just two.
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 us?
Anything that keeps the mail at my end from being so redundant would be
greatly appreciated. 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.

Sounds good to me,

Dwarf

------------                                          --------------

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 877-0257
      Flexible Software              Fax:     NONE 
      Black Creek Critters           e-mail:  [email-masked]

------------ If you don't see what you want, just ask --------------

---

From: Rob Browning <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Aug 1996 10:46:30 -0500

Dale Scheetz <[email-masked]> 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
generally remove duplicates for you if you want it to.  It keeps a
cache of incoming mail message ID's and can be cofigured to do
anything you want with the duplicates.  I have it place them in a
separate mail group which I just trash every now and then.

--
Rob

---

From: [email-masked] (Emilio Lopes)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 96 13:12 EST

>>>>> "IJ" == Ian Jackson <[email-masked]> 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.

-- 
                 Emilio C. Lopes <mailto:[email-masked]>
               Instituto de Fisica da Universidade de Sao Paulo
             Caixa Postal 66318, 05389-970 Sao Paulo - SP, BRAZIL
              Phone: (+55) (11) 818-6724 (Voice) / 818-6715 (Fax)

---

From: Lukas Nellen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 16:23:44 -0500

...
> cache of incoming mail message ID's and can be cofigured to do

The procmail package also allowes you to set up a message-id cache. Have a look at formail(1) and at the `vacation' example in procmailex(5). 

			Cheers,
				Lukas

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Dr. Lukas Nellen                 | Email: [email-masked]
   Depto. de Fisica Teorica, IFUNAM |
   Apdo. Postal 20-364              | Tel.:  +52 5 622 5014 ext. 218
   01000 Mexico D.F., MEXICO        | Fax:   +52 5 622 5015

---

From: Mr Stuart Lamble <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 08:00:33 +1000 (EST)

> separate mail group which I just trash every now and then.

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 filtering at your ISP's end of the link.

I'm not overly concerned personally at the moment - I'm at university, and
the government pays for my feed :-) - but it's generally not good etiquette
full stop.

-- 
Windows is not the answer. Windows is the question. Linux is the answer.
http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdw/ for all your PC software requirements. ;-)

---

From: Lars Wirzenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 01:28:23 +0300

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-masked]> <http://www.iki.fi/liw/>
Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list.

---

From: Rob Browning <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 Aug 1996 09:32:53 -0500

> copies of messages: they pay for their PPP link (or UUCP feed, or whatever).

I wasn't thinking about this.  Good point.

--
Rob

---

From: [email-masked] (Bernd Eckenfels)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 17:52:25 +0200 (MET DST)

Hi,

> I wasn't thinking about this.  Good point.

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. Of
course the duplicates are anoying, the problem is, that one has to use
eigther reply and modifier the target, or use group reply and remove the
author. Both is anoying and often i simply forget to. (Of course email
programs could be fixed to be able to deal with mailinglists which dont set
the From/Reply-To).

Greetings
Bernd

---

From: Lars Wirzenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 03:25:26 +0300

Bernd Eckenfels:
> 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.

---

From: Dan Stromberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 10:24:49 -0700

> the government pays for my feed :-) - but it's generally not good etiquette

Bandwidth prices have dropped quite healthily in recent years, and they
are going to continue to do so.  Rambling on about being cc'd, when the
bandwidth prices are still dropping, and YOU HAVE alternatives, is silly
at best.

Those of you who've been going on and on about this, consuming far too
much human-time (on this already excessively voluminous list) :

1) Have you switched up to a 28.8kbps modem yet, or at least a 14.4kbps
modem?  Yes, modems cost money, but shelling out a little for a modem
now may save you heavily in bandwidth if you transfer much data - and
would save you a lot more than badgering people about cc'ing.

2) Are you transferring your mail gzip'd?  If not, why not?  Have you
bothered to look for an ISP that will help you do this?  This too would
save you a lot more than badgering people about cc'ing.

3) Have you bothered to look for an ISP that will do upstream filtering?
Have you even bothered to ask your current ISP if they'd be willing?  If
you want to do all your interaction with the internet over a low
bandwidth link, and you're concerned about bandwidth costs, then this
SHOULD be a deciding factor in your choice of ISP.  This also, would
save you a lot more than badgering people about cc'ing.

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 96 22:23 PDT

From: Dan Stromberg <[email-masked]>
> 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 some
places because the Post Office (regulator of _all_ communications) has
not approved them. You have to smuggle them in from other countries,
and when you use them, you are bootlegging.

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.

	Bruce

---

From: Miquel van Smoorenburg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 18:03:14 +0200 (MET DST)

> blue phones and gold phones, and only the gold ones could make long

But when you have the right phone, and you know the trick with the
Follow button you can dial for free (even internationally!). An old
backpackers trick :). These are the orange ones you find in pubs
and government buildings.

Mike.

---

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 23:07 BST

Dale Scheetz writes ("Re: CC's on this mailing list"):
...
> that these people suffer reading the lists like the rest of us?

Yes.  It is rude to post to a mailing list or newsgroup that you don't
read (except certain closed lists that operate more like aliases, eg
[email-masked] which forwards to debian-private or
[email-masked]).

Ian.