Trevor Jenkins writes:
Much like total strangers sending vcard attachments I consider cc:ing list
replies poor 'netiquete at best and total arrogance at worst. If I were so
inclined I'd have a procmail recipe that auto-/dev/null's all such cc:ed
Total arrogance? Sending you a Cc doesn't fit any definition of
the word that I know. On the other hand, your remark itself does.
It's especially arrogant when it's the person asking for help
complaining about an extra copy.
Note that some lists actually allow non-subscribers to post, being used
for support functions for users. This list happens to be one of them.
The procmail man page tells people to post here but doesn't require
that they subscribe here first. So the Cc may be *necessary* if it
is not known whether the sender is on the list.
Cc's are also useful when lists are slow (this one is hardly instant,
and I'm on several that seem to be hours-to-days); also, some
people do like them, one copy going to a list folder and the other
to a personal mail folder, with procmail separating the two nicely.
It's easier for someone who doesn't want the Cc to delete it, than
it is for someone who wants it but doesn't get it, to create it.
So, if you really care, then I suggest you get off your high horse
and put "Reply-To:" in your *outgoing* mail; this list will pass it
through, and then you will get fewer Cc's and will have a better case
for complaining about the remaining ones you might get.
I *think* pine lets you do that. I am doing it on this post with elm.
Doctrinalism in everything being "open source" doesn't help. That pine
isn't doctrinally "OpenSource" may be true. It's "free" in that one does
not have to pay. But as pine has recently been updated (version 4.33) it
ain't obsolete. Indeed I know improvements are still being made because I
discussed enhancements with the development people today. Others providing
patches to pine (see .sig) would also not agree with you.
Speaking of arrogance, the arrogance of pine developers was one
reason I stopped using it. Do they still refuse to allow you
any method for attaching a text file without base64 encoding it?
They did, on the grounds that it's not good for you to send
text attachments as text. (Corruption? Duhhh, if I care,
I'll sign it or something. Both sender and receiver wanted the
attached file to end up in a greppable mbox, and why wouldn't
"normal" mail be just as corruptible anyhow? And I can't
remember a case of corrupted, but not lost, mail in years
And does pine still rewrite your mailbox and change the header
formatting, even when you "just look"? I remember a couple of cases
where its arrogantly doing that caused considerable problems
ON THIS LIST in figuring out what somebody's problem was, because
pine rewrote the headers when it was used to just look at the mbox,
and that helped to hide the actual problem.
procmail mailing list