Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> If you're not subscribed and don't want copies anyway, set your own MFT
> header saying so, which would prevent the list from guessing otherwise.
> If the user has set MFT explicitly, the list should probably not mess
> with it.
If the user has explicitly
Am 2006-03-03 19:28:50, schrieb Glenn Maynard:
> It's even worse with complex cross-posting, where several lists and several
> individuals are being copied. Neither list-reply nor group-reply does the
Can you imagin, that peoples hate cros-postres?
Cross-Posting is DISCURAGED!!!
Greetings
M
Hi John,
Am 2006-03-01 09:48:45, schrieb John H. Robinson, IV:
> In the signature would probably be poor, as the lowlighting would hide
> it, and who really reads the signatures, anyway? The best place is
> probably right before the signature. A simple one line things: Please cc
> me, I am not su
Am 2006-03-02 04:25:27, schrieb Glenn Maynard:
> Just as a thought, I wonder if it's possible for the list software to
> automatically add an MFT header, if it's missing, indicating that only
> people not subscribed to the list, or explicitly in the CC list, should
> be CC'd.
The "Mail-Followup-T
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 07:56:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I continue to think that you have not read the DRUMS discussions.
No insult is meant, but you show no signs of having done so.
I read the messages you linked. They complained that it's not a standard
and ass
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 07:56:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I continue to think that you have not read the DRUMS discussions.
> No insult is meant, but you show no signs of having done so.
I read the messages you linked. They complained that it's not a standard
and asserted, without explanation, th
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 07:56:20PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I frequently post to lists that I am not subscribed to and don't
> want a CC for. I either get the messages through a remailer or
> another access method (NNTP, web archives later, and so on).
I don't see how that differs from being subscri
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 09:35:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I still think you seem not to have
> > followed the references. There are reasons why
> > draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt wasn't accepted. I
> > will not present them again here, bec
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 02:45:47PM +0100, Sven Mueller wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote on 07/03/2006 01:05:
> > It is your job to set MFT if you want my mailer to treat you differently
> > than everyone else, such as if you want to receive CCs on list posts.
>
> Why? MFT isn't an accepted standard. I
Bernhard R. Link wrote on 07/03/2006 18:39:
> * Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060307 14:46]:
>
>>I don't say that the idea behind MFT is a bad idea (actually, many
>>aspects of it _do_ make sense), but until it is accepted as a standard,
>>it is (IMHO) stupid to ask people to tweak their MUAs
* Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060307 14:46]:
> I don't say that the idea behind MFT is a bad idea (actually, many
> aspects of it _do_ make sense), but until it is accepted as a standard,
> it is (IMHO) stupid to ask people to tweak their MUAs to set and handle it.
It does not matter if it i
Glenn Maynard wrote on 07/03/2006 01:05:
> It is your job to set MFT if you want my mailer to treat you differently
> than everyone else, such as if you want to receive CCs on list posts.
Why? MFT isn't an accepted standard. It also isn't implemented in too
many MUAs (mozilla/thunderbird just bein
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 09:35:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I read them, and they seem to say "it's not an annointed standard" (not
> > relevant) and "it's a header, put it in the body instead" (which is
> > naming a poor alternative, not naming a problem with MFT).
>
> Sorry, I still think you se
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:06:46AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Neither? So you still didn't bother with the reference?
> >
> > The problems are cited: maybe you don't agree they are problems.
>
> I read them, and they seem to say "it's not an annointed standard" (
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:06:46AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Neither? So you still didn't bother with the reference?
>
> The problems are cited: maybe you don't agree they are problems.
I read them, and they seem to say "it's not an annointed standard" (not
relevant) and "it's a header, put it in th
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:31:31AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Please see my other message and look up the DRUMS reference:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/03/msg3.html
> > For another person complaining about the brokenness of MFT, see
> > http:
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:31:31AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Please see my other message and look up the DRUMS reference:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/03/msg3.html
> For another person complaining about the brokenness of MFT, see
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/03/ms
Floris Bruynooghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] Only on direct replies this
> request will be preserved, after that the request could be easily
> stipped by accident. [...]
Well, the same is more true for MFT, especially when it hits a
user agent that doesn't support that non-standard, as it wouldn'
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:31:31AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:12:58AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > I'm sure it's possible, but I think encouraging that broken
> > > non-standard header is a bad idea. It is not that hard for
> > > people to
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:12:58AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I'm sure it's possible, but I think encouraging that broken
> > non-standard header is a bad idea. It is not that hard for
> > people to control their mail clients correctly IMO.
>
> You say "broken he
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:12:58AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> > Just as a thought, I wonder if it's possible for the list software to
> > automatically add an MFT header, if it's missing, indicating that only
> > people not subscribed to the list, or explicitly
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> Just as a thought, I wonder if it's possible for the list software to
> automatically add an MFT header, if it's missing, indicating that only
> people not subscribed to the list, or explicitly in the CC list, should
> be CC'd. [...]
I'm sure it's possible
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 05:22:49AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> I'm sorry that you cannot remember, but perhaps you could use procmail
> or something similar to make sure that this header is always set
> according to each list policy. Also, you could set up mutt to do
> different things for di
Brian M. Carlson wrote:
>
> Mutt has several different reply options, some of them may be more
> appropriate than others. Anyway, it does not matter: the Debian Mailing
> List Code of Conduct *explicitly* says:
>
> When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon
> copy (C
On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 02:46 +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:04:17AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > However, the code of conduct seems to
> > point out that one should not Cc someone unless they specifically ask
> > for it (a guideline that you neglected to follow, after
25 matches
Mail list logo
