Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > > On 02 Aug 2000, Bolan Meek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On topics arisen from this discussion, > > Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > > > ...BTW, please refrain from sending to _both_ the list and me, > > > I read the list. ...
> > One may assume that those whose names one sees often > > are subuscribed, but how to be sure, generally? I propose > ...In general, on open lists you should assume > one is reading the list s/he is posting to.... Ah, good, so, with this assumption, one ought to remove the personal To:'s and Cc:'s, unless requested? (Like you did..) > > a habit of including in the .sig a notice: > > I'm on this list > ...And how should I know what e.g. Ben had in his > signature about being on the list or not? How should one know what your > intention was to Cc: him? This might work for the first time, but not > for the next replies (which, on a discussion-list are very likely). Well, if his .sig was respected, he should no longer be in the Cc: list, in the first place. But the point is taken about the .sig not being worth much for this, as a convention. It also occurs to me that some might not want to yield their .sig space for this, in favor of whatever political/religious/humor message. > ... Brian May wrote: > > >>>>> "Gerfried" == Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Gerfried> I go another way: I included now a header that should > Gerfried> be respected by most MUAs: Mail-CopiesTo: never > > The "mail-copies-to" header does sound good, but I have mixed feelings > as to if it really solves the problems. > > Oh, BTW, Mail-CopiesTo: never is obsolete, use "nobody" instead. See > http://www.newsreaders.com/misc/mail-copies-to.html > > Mostly coming from this: > > Gerfried> I think newcomers should rather be guided to _not_ Cc: > Gerfried> one posting to a list than to rely on some obscure > Gerfried> sentence in one's signature. The header I noticed is a > Gerfried> proposed draft that is included in some MUAs, and will > Gerfried> quite possibly be in by more in the future. OK. So henceforth, my practice will be to remove personal Cc:s Thank you. > ... > I would prefer another header (does the "followup-to" header do > this??), that is like "reply-to:", except it works for group > followups, rather then private replies. Even better, if it supported > mailing lists *and* newsgroups... If the poster hasn't submitted one, > the mailing list software could add a default one. If there is already > a header, it shouldn't be replaced. > > Another-words, I think it should be up to the sender to specify > exactly where the group reply should go. If the sender doesn't say, > then the mailing list should be able to specify. This should happen > without affecting private replies (so reply-to can't be used). One problem I have, is that posts come to me From: the poster, and my MUA doesn't respect the Resent-from: header, so if I `Reply`, it goes only to the poster, but when I `Reply-all`, the list is Cc:ed. I haven't noticed a Followup-to: header (but I haven't sought them, either), so I don't know what my MUA shall do with those. -- I'm on the -user list. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 972-729-5387 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (home ph. on Q) http://www.koyote.com/users/bolan RE: xmailtool http://www.koyote.com/users/bolan/xmailtool/index.html RMS of Borg: "Resistance is futile; you shall be freed."