FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-12-2011, 02:14 AM
 
Default oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct

Recently I replied to a certain message on this list with my familiar
S W runs the command gnus-summary-wide-reply-with-original
keystrokes, only to receive

>I'm subscribed to the list, no need to CC me:
>http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
>No need to reply to this message.

And indeed lo and behold, my "S W" habit is in violation here, 100%.

However the same keystrokes on a different message did not produce the
complaint inducing courtesy copy. Was the first message boobytrapped? No.

The second message I replied to it turns out contained
Mail-Followup-To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, jidanni@jidanni.org

Therefore perhaps
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
could be amended to mention that adding a Mail-Followup-To header might
add an additional wall of defense for those who wish to cut down even
further the possibility they might receive a courtesy copy from the less
technically adept.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 878vwlvxlh.fsf@jidanni.org">http://lists.debian.org/878vwlvxlh.fsf@jidanni.org
 
Old 03-12-2011, 02:36 AM
Shachar Shemesh
 
Default oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct

On 12/03/11 05:14, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:


Therefore perhaps
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
could be amended to mention that adding a Mail-Followup-To header might
add an additional wall of defense for those who wish to cut down even
further the possibility they might receive a courtesy copy from the less
technically adept.




Personally, I think the code of conduct should be amended, along with
the list software. So far, my research shows that the difference between
people (like myself) who prefer to get the two copies and people who
don't does not depend on level of technical knowledge, but specifics of
method of reading the lists. I am subscribed to lots and lots of mailing
lists. All mail from those lists gets automatically delivered to
dedicated folders automatically. This means I'm highly likely to miss a
reply to my own emails to the list unless I get another, direct, copy
(which doesn't have the list hidden headers, and therefor stays in my
inbox). I *like* to get two copies, as it increases the chance that I
actually get to see the replies to my own emails.


I understand and respect the fact that other people, due to using a mail
client that does not allow filtering based on hidden headers, because
they are only subscribed to a couple of mailing lists, or for whatever
other reason, do not appreciate the extra copy. The problem is that I
cannot tell them apart.


Since the default for all non-mailing list communication should be
"reply to all" (after all, if someone decided to CC a third party on a
conversation they started with you, it's a bit impolite to cut said
third party off from the reply), I think the current internet trend to
treat the use of "reply to all" as a mistake is misguided.


The solution I propose is already implemented in mailing list software
such as mailman. In it, there is a per-user settable flag called "avoid
duplicates". If it is set, if the mailing list detects that a CC or To
recipient is also a mailing list subscriber, that subscriber does not
get mailed a copy of the mail. This allows everyone to always hit 'reply
to all', and have those who wish to receive an extra copy get it, and
those who do not (such as most other subscribers to this list) not.


I should point out that several mailing lists I'm subscribed to where
this topic was a constant cause of bickering among the mailing
participants switched to mailman, and the result was quiet on the 'reply
to all' front for several years now.


Shachar

--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd.
http://www.lingnu.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4D7AEA4C.2060605@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4D7AEA4C.2060605@debian.org
 
Old 03-12-2011, 08:50 AM
Carsten Hey
 
Default oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct

* jidanni@jidanni.org [2011-03-12 11:14 +0800]:
> Recently I replied to a certain message on this list with my familiar
> S W runs the command gnus-summary-wide-reply-with-original
> keystrokes, only to receive
>
> >I'm subscribed to the list, no need to CC me:
> >http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
> >No need to reply to this message.
>
> ...

I set Mail-Followup-To: on every mail I send to *@lists.debian.org.
Most DDs just ignore it (though there are some exceptions) and this
renders using Mail-Followup-To: to get a copy to be rather useless.

There are examples where we lost potential future maintainers because
they never received a reply to an RFS. These replies were sent to the
list, but they were not sent to those requesting sponsorship.

> Therefore perhaps
> http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
> could be amended to mention that adding a Mail-Followup-To header might
> add an additional wall of defense for those who wish to cut down even
> further the possibility they might receive a courtesy copy from the less
> technically adept.

I agree.

If a message I reply to contains a Mail-Followup-To: set, I use it. If
not, I guess if the person I reply to wants to receive a reply. To
prevent me to Cc: you, you need to explicitly set Mail-Followup-To: to
the list.


Carsten


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110312095003.GA17611@furrball.stateful.de">http://lists.debian.org/20110312095003.GA17611@furrball.stateful.de
 
Old 03-12-2011, 10:57 AM
Carsten Hey
 
Default oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct

* Carsten Hey [2011-03-12 10:50 +0100]:
> There are examples where we lost potential future maintainers because
> they never received a reply to an RFS. These replies were sent to the
> list, but they were not sent to those requesting sponsorship.

To clarify this: the problem was not that Mail-Followup-To: has been
ignored, but the partly insane code of conduct. How should new people
know that they don't get a copy of replies to their messages unless they
explicitly request one?

Regards
Carsten


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110312115729.GB17611@furrball.stateful.de">http://lists.debian.org/20110312115729.GB17611@furrball.stateful.de
 
Old 03-12-2011, 02:48 PM
The Fungi
 
Default oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:57:29PM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
[...]
> How should new people know that they don't get a copy of replies
> to their messages unless they explicitly request one?

Maybe it's a generational difference... as I expect did authors of
the code of conduct, I came up on bulletin boards and Usenet in the
80s, where it was common courtesy to read any FAQ, CoC or other
relevant documentation (and even lurk for a while if possible) to
get a sense of the community's prevailing practices and culture
before participating in discussion. Every culture, no matter its
size, has distinct conventions and taboos, and not endeavoring to
learn them first before attempting to interact often results in
friction.
--
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); PGP(43495829);
WHOIS(STANL3-ARIN); SMTP(fungi@yuggoth.org); FINGER(fungi@yuggoth.org);
MUD(kinrui@katarsis.mudpy.org:6669); IRC(fungi@irc.yuggoth.org#ccl);
ICQ(114362511); YAHOO(crawlingchaoslabs); AIM(dreadazathoth); }


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110312154822.GX1293@yuggoth.org">http://lists.debian.org/20110312154822.GX1293@yuggoth.org
 
Old 03-13-2011, 05:19 AM
Ben Finney
 
Default oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct

Shachar Shemesh <shachar@debian.org> writes:

> Personally, I think the code of conduct should be amended, along with
> the list software.

While this shouldn't turn into a counting of popularity, I'd like to
register that there are people who think the list behaviour currently
(leave the Reply-To field untouched) is correct.

> So far, my research shows that the difference between people (like
> myself) who prefer to get the two copies and people who don't does not
> depend on level of technical knowledge, but specifics of method of
> reading the lists.

That sounds right.

> I am subscribed to lots and lots of mailing lists. All mail from those
> lists gets automatically delivered to dedicated folders automatically.
> This means I'm highly likely to miss a reply to my own emails to the
> list unless I get another, direct, copy (which doesn't have the list
> hidden headers, and therefor stays in my inbox). I *like* to get two
> copies, as it increases the chance that I actually get to see the
> replies to my own emails.

If you like to get two copies, why can't you arrange to generate the
extra copies you want without involving anyone else's configuration?

Conversely, I *don't* want any message to the forum to also be sent to
me individually via email.

In some cases that's because the individual message arrives first, is
often read first, yet is the one that I want to avoid receiving. No
filter can help with that, since it has no “other copy” to work with at
the time it's needed.

In other cases that's because I don't participate in the forum via email
at all, so I don't want to receive any messages in that forum via email.

> I understand and respect the fact that other people, due to using a
> mail client that does not allow filtering based on hidden headers,
> because they are only subscribed to a couple of mailing lists, or for
> whatever other reason, do not appreciate the extra copy. The problem
> is that I cannot tell them apart.

Why do you need to tell those classes of people apart? Why is being
unable to tell them apart a problem?

> Since the default for all non-mailing list communication should be
> "reply to all" (after all, if someone decided to CC a third party on a
> conversation they started with you, it's a bit impolite to cut said
> third party off from the reply)

I object to this idea quite strongly.

The “forgot to include someone” mistake you identify is easily rectified
after the message is sent; the “included someone whom I didn't intend”
is impossible to rectify after the fact. For that reason among others,
“reply to all” should not be the default but should be a deliberate
decision in each instance.

> The solution I propose is already implemented in mailing list software
> such as mailman. In it, there is a per-user settable flag called
> "avoid duplicates".

I'm not a “user” recognised by the mailing list servers of many of the
forums in which I participate, so your proposal is not a solution for my
case. I know I'm not the only one who participates in Debian (and other)
mailing lists as non-email forums.

--
“What is needed is not the will to believe but the will to find |
` out, which is the exact opposite.” —Bertrand Russell, _Free |
_o__) Thought and Official Propaganda_, 1928 |
Ben Finney


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 8762rn4k4w.fsf@benfinney.id.au">http://lists.debian.org/8762rn4k4w.fsf@benfinney.id.au
 
Old 03-13-2011, 07:44 AM
Shachar Shemesh
 
Default oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct

On 13/03/11 08:19, Ben Finney wrote:


Shachar Shemesh<shachar@debian.org> writes:



Personally, I think the code of conduct should be amended, along with
the list software.


While this shouldn't turn into a counting of popularity, I'd like to
register that there are people who think the list behaviour currently
(leave the Reply-To field untouched) is correct.

Never mentioned Reply-To, don't think Reply-To munging is correct, and
don't understand why you brought it up. When talking about change to the
list software, I was referring to the "Avoid duplicates" option,
discussed below.




I am subscribed to lots and lots of mailing lists. All mail from those
lists gets automatically delivered to dedicated folders automatically.
This means I'm highly likely to miss a reply to my own emails to the
list unless I get another, direct, copy (which doesn't have the list
hidden headers, and therefor stays in my inbox). I *like* to get two
copies, as it increases the chance that I actually get to see the
replies to my own emails.


If you like to get two copies, why can't you arrange to generate the
extra copies you want without involving anyone else's configuration?


Any suggestions on how to do it?

Conversely, I *don't* want any message to the forum to also be sent to
me individually via email.

In some cases that's because the individual message arrives first, is
often read first, yet is the one that I want to avoid receiving. No
filter can help with that, since it has no “other copy” to work with at
the time it's needed.

In other cases that's because I don't participate in the forum via email
at all, so I don't want to receive any messages in that forum via email.

I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I will point out that
disregarding unwanted messages is easier to do with filters than
generating new ones (and, more importantly, automatically figuring out
for which messages duplicates should be generated).


I understand and respect the fact that other people, due to using a
mail client that does not allow filtering based on hidden headers,
because they are only subscribed to a couple of mailing lists, or for
whatever other reason, do not appreciate the extra copy. The problem
is that I cannot tell them apart.


Why do you need to tell those classes of people apart? Why is being
unable to tell them apart a problem?

As an example - the list charter clearly states that if someone
indicates they wish to receive a copy you should CC him. I do not think
I could have more clearly indicated my wish to do so than in my previous
email, and yet you didn't. The reason I need to tell those apart from
those is because that's what the list's charter says I should do. This
is impossible to follow, and therefor should be amended.


Since the default for all non-mailing list communication should be
"reply to all" (after all, if someone decided to CC a third party on a
conversation they started with you, it's a bit impolite to cut said
third party off from the reply)


I object to this idea quite strongly.

The “forgot to include someone” mistake you identify is easily rectified
after the message is sent; the “included someone whom I didn't intend”
is impossible to rectify after the fact. For that reason among others,
“reply to all” should not be the default but should be a deliberate
decision in each instance.

I totally accept that argument in the context of automatically adding
"reply to" to lists, but not as a code of conduct for email at large.
This is why I specifically said "non-mailing list communication".


If I wrote you an email, and thought it necessary to CC someone, then
this discussion is obviously part of a discussion said someone need to
be aware of. It would be impolite of you to exclude him from your answer
unless there is a good reason to do so. In other words, the default (not
the software's default - your default as a human) should be to reply to
all. There is a growing trend to make hitting reply to all illegitimate
under any and all circumstances, which I think is in error.


The solution I propose is already implemented in mailing list software
such as mailman. In it, there is a per-user settable flag called
"avoid duplicates".


I'm not a “user” recognised by the mailing list servers of many of the
forums in which I participate, so your proposal is not a solution for my
case. I know I'm not the only one who participates in Debian (and other)
mailing lists as non-email forums.


But I believe that this is also something that can be resolved using
technical means. I think the current policy is unnecessarily complex if
followed, and in practice is not followed at all, leading to sub-optimal
behavior.


Shachar

--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd.
http://www.lingnu.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4D7C83D7.1060004@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4D7C83D7.1060004@debian.org
 
Old 03-13-2011, 08:14 AM
Josselin Mouette
 
Default oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct

Le samedi 12 mars 2011 * 10:50 +0100, Carsten Hey a écrit :
> I set Mail-Followup-To: on every mail I send to *@lists.debian.org.
> Most DDs just ignore it (though there are some exceptions) and this
> renders using Mail-Followup-To: to get a copy to be rather useless.

Maybe this is because Mail-Followup-To is not part of any standard of
any kind, making it unimplemented in a large number of MUAs.

Add to this the fact that it is overly complex to implement in a sane
and intuitive way; unless you know what it really means (which is
different for each MUA on the receiving end), users just wouldn’t know
what to put in it.

--
.'`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone,
`- […] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling
 
Old 03-13-2011, 08:29 AM
Andrei Popescu
 
Default oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct

On Du, 13 mar 11, 10:44:07, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> On 13/03/11 08:19, Ben Finney wrote:
> >If you like to get two copies, why can't you arrange to generate the
> >extra copies you want without involving anyone else's configuration?

> Any suggestions on how to do it?

By setting 'Reply-To:' appropriately, this is what it's for.

Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 
Old 03-13-2011, 04:54 PM
Shachar Shemesh
 
Default oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct

On 13/03/11 11:29, Andrei Popescu wrote:



Any suggestions on how to do it?


By setting 'Reply-To:' appropriately, this is what it's for.

If I set "reply-to" to myself, the mail won't go to the list. If I set
it to the list, it won't go to me. Either way, the desired effect isn't
achieved.


Also, reply-to is the wrong tool for this job (this is NOT what it's
for), as it prohibits distinction between replies to the list and reply
to me.


Shachar



--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd.
http://www.lingnu.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4D7D04B9.2050306@shemesh.biz">http://lists.debian.org/4D7D04B9.2050306@shemesh.biz
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:49 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org