Re: Bug#457318: ITP: qmail -- a secure, reliable, efficient, simple message transfer agent

Lennart Sorensen <[email protected]>:
>  On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:35:28AM +0930, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[email protected]> and Lennart Sorensen
> > <[email protected]> wrote stuff
> > 
> > Please don't CC me, I'm subscribed to the list:
> > 
> > http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
> 
>  And meanwhile lkml whines if you don't CC people.  It's a bit of a pain

lkml is very high traffic and they're busy people.  d-u is very high
traffic, but we're (generally) not kernel developers.  That sort of
poster is generally off in debian-devel... and I understand they only
look in here from time to time.  [Hi!  :-)]

>  to remember not to just automatically hit group reply when you are used
>  to it on many lists.

Shouldn't the default be List reply, and people request Cc:'s if they
want them, just as my .sig suggests no Cc:'s?

>  So who does one lobby at to change the debian mailing list policy
>  to be "Don't CC people if explicitly requested, but otherwise do"?

Debian's all voluntary, so dive in and change it if you can.  I'd
prefer you didn't, but I'm not God.  Reply to the list except when
other arrangements are requested.  Smiple[sic].

>  If I see a signature line requesting not to be CC'd I almost always
>  manage to not CC.

Thanks.  Most appear to never see my .sig.

BTW, Cc:'s really don't bother me at all.  That bit's down there
because Cc:s are unnecessary, not because they piss me off.  For the
number I get, they're nowhere near irritant (spam) level.


-- 
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*)    http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html      Linux Counter #80292
- -    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html    Please, don't Cc: me.