netiquette argument of the month

[Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org>]

On 7/10/10 5:56 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 09:19:04PM -0700, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
> > My mail is now rejected by Rich Kulawiec on that basis. At least, that's
> > the header I got on the bounce from the last post you all saw.
>
> Actually, your mail is rejected here because you haven't got the basic
> courtesy to follow up to mailing list traffic on the list (only) or
> privately (only).  It's rude and wasteful to send redundant copies,
> with some rare exceptions involving items that are important and/or
> time-critical.

Not getting into whatever discussion you have going with Tom, will you 
be surprised if I said I disagree on this point?

Mail clients handle dups well, as do mailing lists. Two layers of 
protection again the horrible double messages. What *most* mail clients 
do not do is handle reply-to-list well (practical + non annoying). To 
save on time, I hit reply-all (practical).

Also, I like to know when someone replies to my messages, rather than 
wait until I have time to review list traffic (personal preference).

Thus, we all save on time, and the netiquette you quote is quite quaint, 
dated to the 1980s. I have no problem if you follow it, but I personally 
choose to hit reply-all automagically unless my client supports 
reply-list (which it does for MailMan).

        Gadi.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.