Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
* 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 gmail)... why does this funny and akward rule of debian lists persist? Because it is the only rule that allows people to set their own policies? Just because you do not distinguish between list mail and list mail CCed to you, that is no reason to force everyone to do so. Frankly, I want to just use reply/reply-all normally on any of the many mailing lists I am sub'd to, Then please do not use any mailing list I'm subscribed to. and if a few people in the thread are CC'd, I don't think it is a reasonable expectation that I have to decide whether each one of them wants or not the CC. People already CCed are a different beast. But CCing the creator of a mail by default is not reasonable. A funny side-effect of this is that I've seen subscribers of debian lists get in trouble in non debian lists because they use funny headers in lists with differnt expectations Yes, just like they might get in trouble when they do not top-quote, do not shout, or when they do not spit when speaking to a Klingon. Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 same problem - ours is different to many other communities where CCs are fine or even welcome, eg the kernel communities. That's a separate problem - with the CCs it's just that there's no agreement in general about how to handle CCs, and no real prospect of ever getting global agreement. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 create these annoying arguments periodically. In my experience it's helpful to have a convention - there always seems to be some exchange of ideas on the issue but if there's a convention then at least you can point at it and say that's the way we do things round here. We could document the convention without making it part of a code of conduct, which implies that we somehow enforce it and will drop people from mailing lists for not following it or something. 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). -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 experience differs from yours: people *don't* generally ignore them, and I find most people respond positively when I point out the no-Cc-by-default provision of the code of conduct. I suppose the exceptions to this may draw your attention more. -- \ “Listen: we are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let | `\ anybody tell you otherwise.” —_Timequake_, Kurt Vonnegut | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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, and all this provision seems to do in practice is create these annoying arguments periodically. In my experience it's helpful to have a convention - there always seems to be some exchange of ideas on the issue but if there's a convention then at least you can point at it and say that's the way we do things round here. We could document the convention without making it part of a code of conduct, which implies that we somehow enforce it and will drop people from mailing lists for not following it or something. 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). For the record, the code of conduct got modified to also avoid the other extreme side which are public complaints about unwanted CC (which lead to those annoying threads and discussions). http://cvs.debian.org/webwml/english/MailingLists/index.wml?root=webwmlr1=1.37r2=1.38diff_format=h Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 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 periodically. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 solution to this problem is to fix the mailing list code of conduct to stop creating this expectation. Presumably the code of conduct requests it because it was deemed desirable. 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 not, in the main, generate needless individual copies of messages in the participants's mailboxes. I, and presumably the people who drafted the code of conduct, continue to find that a very favourable outcome of this provision. -- \ A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing | `\ well. -- Anonymous | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again (was: divergence from upstream as a bug)
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 sent to the list. Hi Ben! Another solution on your side is to use Mail-Followup-To. With gnus, this is really easy: just set message-subscribed-regexps to a list of regexps of the list you are subscribed to. For example: (setq message-subscribed-regexps '(@lists.debian.org @lists.alioth.debian.org )) Most mailers comply with this header. -- GRAMMAR IS NOT A TIME OF WASTE GRAMMAR IS NOT A TIME OF WASTE GRAMMAR IS NOT A TIME OF WASTE -+- Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode AABF10 pgpNfC594wBfW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 not, in the main, generate needless individual copies of messages in the participants's mailboxes. I, and presumably the people who drafted the code of conduct, continue to find that a very favourable outcome of this provision. Fully agreed. I'd hate to see this dropped from the CoC. 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 changed, it should be done after a proper discussion (on d-project probably) and at least be done in coordination with the listmasters, not as the result of an individual request by a random DD. Cheers, FJP signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 consistently. Whereas with the ML CoC, I do have a reasonable expectation that most people should follow it as a recommended best practice on the mailing lists. With gnus, this is really easy: just set message-subscribed-regexps to a list of regexps of the list you are subscribed to. That set is empty. I don't (nor do I wish to) receive messages in Debian list discussions via email. -- \ Q: I've heard that Linux causes cancer... Torvalds: That's | `\ a filthy lie. Besides, it was only in rats and has not been | _o__)reproduced in humans. -- Linus Torvalds | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
-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 has the significant effect that
discussions in these forums do not, in the main, generate needless
individual copies of messages in the participants's mailboxes. I, and
presumably the people who drafted the code of conduct, continue to
find that a very favourable outcome of this provision.
Fully agreed. I'd hate to see this dropped from the CoC.
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
changed, it should be done after a proper discussion (on d-project
probably) and at least be done in coordination with the listmasters, not as
the result of an individual request by a random DD.
Cheers,
FJP
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 Reply All obviously the author of the last email
is listed too.
There's a good reason why this haven't been done yet? Other mailing
lists which I've been subscribed use this.
Regards.
- --
Jose Luis Rivas. San Cristóbal, Venezuela. PGP: 0xCACAB118
http://ghostbar.ath.cx/{about,acerca} - http://debian.org.ve
`ghostbar' @ irc.debian.org/#debian-ve,#debian-devel-es
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIMErPOKCtW8rKsRgRAiieAKCaf3a+JQZhCNQP3/vdvhQpNBgMIACfUBLA
MpQ/DR0Ce5xQj2OZXi2wrkk=
=mtbj
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
* 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 you hit Reply All obviously the author of the last email is listed too. There's a good reason why this haven't been done yet? Other mailing lists which I've been subscribed use this. This makes it impossible for people to set their own reply-to to specify where they want to get private answers sent to. And it makes pressing the reply button sending mails to the list instead of replying privately, which is very confusing... Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 it. It's not much of a solution if I can't expect it to be applied consistently. And many MUAs obey it. So adding it has upsides (you will get less CCs), and no downsides. Sounds like a win to me. With gnus, this is really easy: just set message-subscribed-regexps to a list of regexps of the list you are subscribed to. That set is empty. I don't (nor do I wish to) receive messages in Debian list discussions via email. Srsly. s/are subscribed to/don't want to be CCed on/ Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 probably) and at least be done in coordination with the listmasters, not as the result of an individual request by a random DD. Since the code of conduct was published without discussion and a consensus within the project, and since modified by random DDs (depending on whether or not you consider the members of webwml random) without discussion or consensus within the project, I consider this a somewhat deceitful stance to take. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 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 consistently. And many MUAs obey it. So adding it has upsides (you will get less CCs), and no downsides. Sounds like a win to me. sarcasm Oh noes, this isn't the full proper way to do it, so rather do nothing than fixing it for half of the subscribers ! /sarcasm I don't get why we're even discussing it again. I've not seen MJR post here yet, to explain the evilness of MFT. Once he hace, we can let this subpart of the thread rot in piece. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpEYDX1IP9G4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 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 periodically. +1 I find that a significant proportion of people bothered by CC are those who post too much and are probably annoyed by the number of replies to 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. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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. changed, it should be done after a proper discussion (on d-project probably) and at least be done in coordination with the listmasters, not as the result of an individual request by a random DD. Since the code of conduct was published without discussion and a consensus within the project, and since modified by random DDs (depending on whether or not you consider the members of webwml random) without discussion or consensus within the project, I consider this a somewhat deceitful stance to take. That's bullshit. The CoC has been in place and unchanged for years. Please check the origin in the relevant VCS before making such claims. It was also not committed by random members of webwml, but by a Debian Listmaster, i.e. by someone acting within his delegated authority. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 origin in the relevant VCS before making such claims. Check the mailing list archives where I have stated that this is a bad idea. I have opposed this, as an active member of this project, for longer than that damn webpage has existed. There has never been consensus. There have only been people trying to tell other people to do things that make sense because other people are apparently too stubborn or inept to use their software properly. It was also not committed by random members of webwml, but by a Debian Listmaster, i.e. by someone acting within his delegated authority. If you think that such inanity is in the purview of Listmaster then maybe we should clarify that instead. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 mail (which is what I always do when posting to lists I'm not subscribed to). However, in this case I'll take the blame. I happen to read that list through a news reader and did not allow for M-F-T headers. I will make sure I do check for M-F-T in the future. My apologies. That's bullshit. The CoC has been in place and unchanged for years. Please Yes, and it has been controversial and WRONG for years. I agree it has been controversial. However, wrong is just your opinion. My opinion is that it is right for Debian's lists. There have only been people trying to tell other people to do things that make sense because other people are apparently too stubborn or inept to use their software properly. Right, but that argument works both ways. You are obviously to stubborn and inept to use the reply-to-list function of your software. I personally use kmail [1], which unfortunately does not support setting M-F-T. However, it does a great job of recognizing list mail and correctly doing reply-to-list automatically. Cheers, FJP [1] Note that I did _not_ use kmail for the post to d-www. If I had, it would have respected the M-F-T header. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 periodically. In my experience it's helpful to have a convention - there always seems to be some exchange of ideas on the issue but if there's a convention then at least you can point at it and say that's the way we do things round here. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 it's not a standard, why should I follow it, my MUA never heard of it thing... You can't win. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 did not mail a patch that codifies this, because legislating something like that when there is clearly no consensus about the right thing to do would lead to all sorts of strife. Do you see where I'm going with this? What I proposed instead amounted to a single grammar change, and the removal of some controversial, sometimes-flouted, and, as Russ points out, unenforced bits of the CoC upon which the project never actually agreed. Such a change would introduce benefits: a certain group of people would no longer have the option of using that webpage as a stick to beat people with; the CoC would gain a smidge more legitimacy since a higher percentage of it would be less controversial; fewer people might be encouraged to omit Cc's in spite of my M-F-T. I am posting far too much in this thread. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 that header is. you could have noted the request to be CCed in the body of the mail (which is what I always do when posting to lists I'm not subscribed to). However, in this case I'll take the blame. I happen to read that list through a news reader and did not allow for M-F-T headers. I will make sure I do check for M-F-T in the future. My apologies. Apologies in advance for lengthening this less-than-useful thread. 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)... why does this funny and akward rule of debian lists persist? Frankly, I want to just use reply/reply-all normally on any of the many mailing lists I am sub'd to, and if a few people in the thread are CC'd, I don't think it is a reasonable expectation that I have to decide whether each one of them wants or not the CC. A funny side-effect of this is that I've seen subscribers of debian lists get in trouble in non debian lists because they use funny headers in lists with differnt expectations cheers, m -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpfwZXzHQDqV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 Reply All obviously the author of the last email is listed too. So you use Reply to List, which sends to the mailing list. If your MUA doesn't support that, you're left with the task of doing so manually, and reporting that lack as a bug to the vendor of your MUA. There's a good reason why this haven't been done yet? Other mailing lists which I've been subscribed use this. URL:http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html -- \ It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to | `\ persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. | _o__) —Carl Sagan | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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)... why does this funny and akward rule of debian lists persist? 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 methods. The solution, as requested in the CoC, is to not have the message copies sent individually in the first place. -- \I fly Air Bizarre. You buy a combination one-way round-trip | `\ticket. Leave any Monday, and they bring you back the previous | _o__) Friday. That way you still have the weekend. -- Steven Wright | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 methods. The solution, as requested in the CoC, is to not have the message copies sent individually in the first place. So you are *not* interested in receiving replies to threads you are participating in? Interesting... but a bit strange. I sometimes post in a list I'm not sub'd to and I sure hope people CC me in their replies so I don't have to go hunting in various archives for possible replies. This seems to be the most common scenario, AFAIK. cheers, m -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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, so there is no duplicate that can be detected by such methods. So you are *not* interested in receiving replies to threads you are participating in? Interesting... but a bit strange. 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 in matters that affect only themselves.) This is made inestimably more manageable because most people follow the CoC and reply to the mailing lists without Cc to me, and I don't have to remind most of them to do so all the time. Threads like this are the unfortunate exception to that happy rule, but if they have the outcome that more people become aware of the CoC provision of no-Cc-by-default then that's something good among the bad. -- \ I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything | `\ else. -- Winston Churchill | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 in matters that affect only themselves.) Just out filter *anything* that has [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the to or cc fields, and you're *done*. No more funny rules. Would that not work? m -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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, my MUA never heard of it thing... You can't win. This would be less of an issue if MUAs supplied with Debian supported it.. I know of two that do: mutt and gnus. As far as I can tell, others don't have full support: e.g. evolution, icedove, etc. isedove in Debian/etch doesn't even have a reply to list function (although it did the right thing for this email when I did reply-all; strange; maybe I am wrong and it really does support MFT at least when replying? Still I can't see how to set it automatically for outgoing emails). Brian May -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing lsit code of conduct, again
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 of complaining about the copies. 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 same problem - ours is different to many other communities where CCs are fine or even welcome, eg the kernel communities. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
