Re: lynx-dev Command line support for numbered form inputs

[John Hawkinson]

In message <address@hidden>, David Woolley writes:
>> 
>> I don't believe this is an appropraite discussion for lynx-dev,
>> so I've dropped it from the cc list.
>
>The lynx-dev list policy is to force discussion onto the list by
>setting the reply-to address.

This is getting far more painful than I intended. For your reference,
my message which you are quoting,
<address@hidden>, was not sent to
lynx-dev by me, and I'm somewhat disturbed that it was forwarded there
in a non-obvious fashion (local MTA logs confirm this, as does
timestamp-checking). Had my mail been intended for public consumption,
it would have been somewhat less acerbic.

>> If what you suggest is policy, please ensure that README is updated,
>> in the section on patch submission.
>
>It's implied policy for any mailing list that people read the list for
>a week or two or search the archives, even before asking a support 
>question.  This means that they should also be in a position to read
>any replies without requiring CC copies.

You don't seem to address my point. If the lynx project wishes to
assert that lynx-dev is not an address for the submission of bug
reports and feature contributions by non-members, then the PROBLEMS
section of README should make that clear.

If lots of people on the mailing list want to just yell, well, I am
disinclined to respond.

>Particularly for the lynx list, overriding the reply address is a nuisance,
>and people making fast responses will soon forget to do so, with the
>result that you will drop out of any discussions.

Such is the nature of life in the Big City^H^H^HInternet, evidently.

I wonder, with an ironic bent, whether I would have been much better
off omitting my "Please cc me, I'm not on lynx-dev" and just sent my
submission without it. Surely it would have generated a lot less posturing.

Surely it is not my place, as an "outside contributor" or even were I
a "recent subscriber" to comment that the dangers of mailing lists
that set Reply-To: are well-known.


I think that further discussion of this topic without the intent to
take concrete action (amend PROBLEMS, change the list software, create
a "lynx-bugs" list, etc., etc.) is probably fruitless and I would suggest
that it does not benefit the community to pursue it.

--jhawk