[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: No need for CC, please
From: |
Pierre THIERRY |
Subject: |
Re: No need for CC, please |
Date: |
Tue, 2 May 2006 13:24:32 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 |
Scribit Marco Gerards dies 02/05/2006 hora 09:46:
> > To all members of the list: please reply to the list. In the
> > previous two weeks, I received a personal copy of exactly hundred
> > emails.
> This is the normal way of posting on any mailinglist.
Don't generalize too fast. This is definitely not the normal way of
posting on most mailing lists I'm subscribed to, and also considered an
annoyance on most of them.
Which has lead me to perceive it as such.
It can be the rule here, which I shall respect if it is and stop
complaining, but this definitely not is a rule everywhere.
> Fix your mailclient instead of telling everyone how to work.
My mail client has not to be fixed. It obeys all the standards headers
defined for the electronic mail by the IETF, in the STD and RFC tracks.
Additionaly, my mail client is not involved in distributing incoming
mail. When I receive mail twice, one I'm the direct recipient without
anything inbetween and one being transmitted by a mailing list, it would
be a bug in my MTA not to deliver the first in my personal incoming mail
box and the second in my hurd-l4 incoming mail box.
As for the other mail on this very subject, just prove me wrong if you
think I am, I will sincerely listen to your arguments if they are
consistent.
So far, no sound technical mean was proposed to me to prevent the
annoyance of receiving mails twice, so I tried a social mean.
Maybe this is an argument in favour of enforcing rules technically. ;-)
Simply,
Nowhere man
--
address@hidden
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: No need for CC, please, (continued)
- Re: No need for CC, please, Thomas Schwinge, 2006/05/03
- Re: No need for CC, please, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/03
- Re: No need for CC, please, olafBuddenhagen, 2006/05/09
- Re: No need for CC, please, Thomas Schwinge, 2006/05/09
- Re: No need for CC, please, olafBuddenhagen, 2006/05/11
- Re: No need for CC, please, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/11
- Re: No need for CC, please, olafBuddenhagen, 2006/05/13
- Re: No need for CC, please, olafBuddenhagen, 2006/05/02
Re: No need for CC, please,
Pierre THIERRY <=
- Re: No need for CC, please, Marco Gerards, 2006/05/02
- Re: No need for CC, please, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/02
- Re: No need for CC, please, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/02
- Re: No need for CC, please, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/03