[gentoo-user] Mailing List etiquette FAQ
Phil Sexton
http://www.gweep.ca/~edmonds/usenet/ml-etiquette.html
The orig. gripe was using a reply button rather than starting a new
thread.
Mailing lists in Linux allow you a threaded view, so your post shows up
in the wrong place as is was a reply rather than an original mail.
--
Phil
Our 2nd CD: http://www.cdbaby.com/naomisfancy
Naomi's Fancy performances: http://naomisfancy.virtualave.net/schedule.html
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
Hm. The "Should I mail a copy to the person I'm replying to?" answer is
kinda wrong. On most lists it is usual to reply to the author, Cc: the
list and keep any existing Cc:s. The exception seems to be lists such as
this one where subscription is required for posting.
(Incidentally, subscriber-only lists are considered bad form in many
places, especially in the days of faked From: headers.)
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
Phil Sexton
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:07:46 -0400 Phil Sexton <phils...@InfoAve.Net>
> wrote:
> | Perhaps this will help.
> |
> | http://www.gweep.ca/~edmonds/usenet/ml-etiquette.html
>
> Hm. The "Should I mail a copy to the person I'm replying to?" answer is
> kinda wrong. On most lists it is usual to reply to the author, Cc: the
> list and keep any existing Cc:s. The exception seems to be lists such as
> this one where subscription is required for posting.
>
> (Incidentally, subscriber-only lists are considered bad form in many
> places, especially in the days of faked From: headers.)
Personally I will stick with the FAQ and had rather receive one reply to
a post rather than two replies. I consider it wasted bandwidth to send
two messages when one will do, or RTF/HTML rather than text.
Joe Menola
> On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:07:46 -0400 Phil Sexton <phils...@InfoAve.Net>
> >
> > wrote:
> > | Perhaps this will help.
> > |
> > | http://www.gweep.ca/~edmonds/usenet/ml-etiquette.html
> >
> > Hm. The "Should I mail a copy to the person I'm replying to?" answer is
> > kinda wrong. On most lists it is usual to reply to the author, Cc: the
> > list and keep any existing Cc:s. The exception seems to be lists such as
> > this one where subscription is required for posting.
> >
> > (Incidentally, subscriber-only lists are considered bad form in many
> > places, especially in the days of faked From: headers.)
>
> Personally I will stick with the FAQ and had rather receive one reply to
> a post rather than two replies. I consider it wasted bandwidth to send
> two messages when one will do, or RTF/HTML rather than text.
FWIW, I agree. Also if one must reply twice... CC the poster, not the list.
The poster's address isn't known by my filter. JMO
-jm
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
| > > (Incidentally, subscriber-only lists are considered bad form in
| > > many places, especially in the days of faked From: headers.)
| >
| > Personally I will stick with the FAQ and had rather receive one
| > reply to a post rather than two replies. I consider it wasted
| > bandwidth to send two messages when one will do, or RTF/HTML rather
| > than text.
|
| FWIW, I agree. Also if one must reply twice... CC the poster, not the
| list. The poster's address isn't known by my filter. JMO
Then I suggest you fix your filters before subscribing to any of the
kernel.org lists :) Use the List-Id: or X-Mailing-List: headers for
filtering, it's what they're there for.
Nick Rout
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:07:46 -0400
Phil Sexton <phils...@InfoAve.Net> wrote:
> Perhaps this will help.
>
> http://www.gweep.ca/~edmonds/usenet/ml-etiquette.html
>
> The orig. gripe was using a reply button rather than starting a new
> thread.
>
> Mailing lists in Linux allow you a threaded view, so your post shows up
> in the wrong place as is was a reply rather than an original mail.
>
Whats linux got to do with it? Its the client that allows the threaded
view, and windows clients, mac clients, any clients should allow you to
thread.
The important point is that a properly written client does not thread
based on subject, but on the specific headers that are designed for that
purpose.
> --
> Phil
> Our 2nd CD: http://www.cdbaby.com/naomisfancy
> Naomi's Fancy performances: http://naomisfancy.virtualave.net/schedule.html
>
>
> --
> gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
--
Nick Rout <ni...@rout.co.nz>
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Phil Sexton
lots more work to reply this way. :)
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 19:17, Nick Rout wrote:
> Whats linux got to do with it? Its the client that allows the threaded
> view, and windows clients, mac clients, any clients should allow you to
> thread.
Perhaps nothing, because I know the workings of Linux better than any
other operating system I have ever used (I do not claim to be a GURU,
though).
It's been so long since I used Windows or any other OS I am unfamiliar
with those e-mail clients, but I use the threaded sorted by subject view
in Linux and I am familiar with it.
Joe Menola
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:55:54 -0500 Joe Menola <men...@sbcglobal.net>
>
> wrote:
> | > > (Incidentally, subscriber-only lists are considered bad form in
> | > > many places, especially in the days of faked From: headers.)
> | >
> | > Personally I will stick with the FAQ and had rather receive one
> | > reply to a post rather than two replies. I consider it wasted
> | > bandwidth to send two messages when one will do, or RTF/HTML rather
> | > than text.
> |
> | FWIW, I agree. Also if one must reply twice... CC the poster, not the
> | list. The poster's address isn't known by my filter. JMO
>
> Then I suggest you fix your filters before subscribing to any of the
> kernel.org lists :) Use the List-Id: or X-Mailing-List: headers for
> filtering, it's what they're there for.
I do now, was just an old rant. But comes with some reasoning. Out of
curiosity, why would/is a reply to poster and CC to list preferred?
Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
| I do now, was just an old rant. But comes with some reasoning. Out of
| curiosity, why would/is a reply to poster and CC to list preferred?
Because you're replying to the poster's question, but keeping anyone
else on the list informed out of courtesy.
Collins Richey
Joe Menola <men...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Thursday June 10 2004 6:11 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:55:54 -0500 Joe Menola <men...@sbcglobal.net>
> >
> > Then I suggest you fix your filters before subscribing to any of the
> > kernel.org lists :) Use the List-Id: or X-Mailing-List: headers for
> > filtering, it's what they're there for.
>
Or just use a mailer like Sylpheed or (I think) Kmail which knows how to
respond to the list by proper analysis of the headers. All I have to do
is click reply. It's only when I get one of those (#@!$ in my
opinion) replies that is CC to the list that I have to do anything
manual.
--
/\/\
( CR ) Collins Richey
\/\/
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Collins Richey
Nick Rout <ni...@rout.co.nz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:07:46 -0400
> Phil Sexton <phils...@InfoAve.Net> wrote:
>
> The important point is that a properly written client does not thread
> based on subject, but on the specific headers that are designed for
> that purpose.
>
True, but that's not the point. If you reply and change the subject
name, the specific headers will keep the message in the wrong (old)
thread, and that's where we started.
Joe Menola
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:40:31 -0500 Joe Menola <men...@sbcglobal.net>
>
> wrote:
> | I do now, was just an old rant. But comes with some reasoning. Out of
> | curiosity, why would/is a reply to poster and CC to list preferred?
>
> Because you're replying to the poster's question, but keeping anyone
> else on the list informed out of courtesy.
I can accept that as logical. But CC'ing the poster accomplishes the same
thing while pleasing those *subscribers* without the benefit of "fancy
filters".
I tend to follow the same train of thought on this topic as I do the whole top
poster thing. We're pleasing the minority that aren't subscribed to the list,
and placing a (albeit small) burden on the subscribers.
This list should be first priority and if you don't care to subscribe, do the
extra work. :)
JMO and infinitely arguable, but....
Bill Kenworthy
rails and wrongly threads.
I have twice received agitated "Dont reply to an existing thread with a
new subject" messages. After wasting time analysing the headers and
contacting the originators and asking for reasons why they think I have
done this, a restart of both accusers kmail ended up in apologies.
BillK
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 07:52, Collins Richey wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:40:31 -0500
>
> Or just use a mailer like Sylpheed or (I think) Kmail which knows how to
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Jeff Smelser
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 10 June 2004 08:16 pm, Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> Beware of kmail, which in some versions at least seems to go off the
> rails and wrongly threads.
>
> I have twice received agitated "Dont reply to an existing thread with a
> new subject" messages. After wasting time analysing the headers and
> contacting the originators and asking for reasons why they think I have
> done this, a restart of both accusers kmail ended up in apologies.
What about kmail? I don't recall ever having any etiquette problems with kmail
being the source..
Me on the other hand, is another story..
- --
My name is Inigo Montoya. You stole my tagline. Prepare to die!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAyQlKld4MRA3gEwYRAp9vAJoDCK7b2V7yf6Ur7IyQhoNmylgZfwCcC3LV
fBp+fsNYVRT+rTy7G7xHqPw=
=PCKJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
James Colannino
>The orig. gripe was using a reply button rather than starting a new
>thread.
>
>
This leads me to a question I've had for a while. Say that you hit
reply rather than manually starting a new thread, and changed the
subject. I've never noticed anything in the headers that would tell the
mail client that it's a part of a specific thread, so how does the mail
client know which thread an email belongs to if the subject is different?
James
--
My blog: http://www.crazydrclaw.com/
My homepage: http://james.colannino.org/
"There are no uninteresting things; only uninterested people." --G.K. Chesterton
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list
Jeff Smelser
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 11 June 2004 12:11 am, James Colannino wrote:
> This leads me to a question I've had for a while. Say that you hit
> reply rather than manually starting a new thread, and changed the
> subject. I've never noticed anything in the headers that would tell the
> mail client that it's a part of a specific thread, so how does the mail
> client know which thread an email belongs to if the subject is different?
How do you think threads work??
References: <1086905265.5016.12.camel@uilleann>
<20040610175...@home.com>
<1086916560.2...@cbbcbitl303c.murdoch.edu.au>
In-Reply-To: <1086916560.2...@cbbcbitl303c.murdoch.edu.au>
Jeff
- --
Press any key to continue or any other key to quit.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAyUBkld4MRA3gEwYRAnVeAKCLgfHpLsE1seVD8baUi+7F+hcAeQCfW54Z
futORxinHCAnkHil3DmKJ0A=
=RjzN
James Colannino
> On Friday 11 June 2004 12:11 am, James Colannino wrote:
>
> >This leads me to a question I've had for a while. Say that you hit
> >reply rather than manually starting a new thread, and changed the
> >subject. I've never noticed anything in the headers that would tell the
> >mail client that it's a part of a specific thread, so how does the mail
> >client know which thread an email belongs to if the subject is different?
>
> How do you think threads work??
>
> References: <1086905265.5016.12.camel@uilleann>
> <20040610175...@home.com>
> <1086916560.2...@cbbcbitl303c.murdoch.edu.au>
> In-Reply-To: <1086916560.2...@cbbcbitl303c.murdoch.edu.au>
Ah... I see :-P I figured it had to do with the headers, but I never
noticed that before. Good to know.
Eric S. Johansson
> Perhaps this will help.
>
> http://www.gweep.ca/~edmonds/usenet/ml-etiquette.html
>
> The orig. gripe was using a reply button rather than starting a new
> thread.
>
> Mailing lists in Linux allow you a threaded view, so your post shows up
> in the wrong place as is was a reply rather than an original mail.
>
on threading topic, actually this speaks to a failure of the user interface and the tool rather than the user. Too many of our tools set up users to fail and that is not their fault. It is our fault for building lousy user interfaces.
so, if the e-mail client was designed properly, it would have broken the thread or at least asked to break the thread since the subject changed significantly.
---eric
--
gento...@gentoo.org mailing list