[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > And please guys, stop cc'ing me. I'm on the list and have been almost > since it started!
Indeed. First, it is actually _rude_ to CC responses to messages from "self- moderating" lists (such as Full-Disclosure) to the poster and the list because, by definition, the poster is on the list and will see your reply. Aside from the rudeness/annoyance value of receiving two copies of such messages, however, in the case of Full-Disclosure the original poster will likely receive four to twenty copies of your message. This occurs because there are some really braindead Email gateways/relays/content scanners out there that "lose" the SMTP envelope addressing information while processing messages (or simply, and very wrongly, decide to supplement such with further addresses from the RFC [2]822 header in the message body) and thereby send "extra" copies back to the sender and/or the list address. At its worst, this can result in a nasty little cycling loop (until, I think, the F-D server simply drops the next iteration because it has too many Received: headers), but even at its best, the several such braindead/misconfigured servers actively processing mail for several soemones on this list will shower the original poster (_NOT_ the person posting the response) with their unneccessary extra copies. So, please do _NOT_ CC your list responses to the OP (if you really, really believe the OP will read your comments twice, consider BCC'ing them, rather than CC'ing). Also, when sending messages to multiple lists (say F-D and Bugtraq), it seems you may slightly reduce the multiple message spew that often results on F-D because of the above by putting all the addresses in the To: header, rather than one in the To: and the other(s) in CC:. Regards, Nick FitzGerald _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html