First, please don't send duplicate messages to me.
I'm not. I'm sending a reply to you, and cc'ing the list.
And you honestly do not see the significance of this? and how it
relates to
the convoluted conflictive philosophical "opinion" of expected
behavior?
I do not pretend to be able to read your mind.
This is appropriate because both are interested parties.
I'm already part of the list.
I'm not going to keep track of who is on which list and who is not.
For all I know, you've already quit the ietf-822 list in disgust. (I
can always hope...)
I'm replying to the list. I don't need or want to send directly to you.
You are being rude by not explicitly including me. Perhaps this is
deliberate, and it is your choice to make. Still, it shows a certain
lack of consideration. Because you don't know whether I'm on the list
either. In fact "moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu" is NOT on the list, but I get the
list via other means.
Yet, you were able to be a part of the communication. There is no
need to send me a 2nd copy - its a waste.
If I had a reliable way to (a) accurately know in real time who was on
which lists, and (b) still be able to indicate that you were an
intended recipient, I'd be happy to save the network the burden of
transporting those few bits. But (a) is actually a hard problem if you
try to deal with race conditions. It's technically much easier to
eliminate duplicates on your end. And for most messages, it's probably
more efficient to send multiple copies than to try to eliminate
duplicates.
If it happens that this results in multiple copies arriving at your
inbox that's your problem, not mine -
Which explains why there isn't going to be solution with this ever
persistent (no matter what it is) attitude of yours.
You are the one expecting other people to solve your problems... And
you want to blame my unwillingness to do so (and my realization that
others may not be willing to solve your problem either) on _my_
attitude? get a clue.
Yet, the irony is you say this but in the same breath you say.......
at least until we have some universally
accepted way of (a) indicating to other recipients that you don't
want to be cc'ed on replies and (b) indicating to other recipients
that you're implicitly getting replies even though you are not
explicitly being sent a reply.
So because this isn't available, its "my problem?" No, the problem
begins
because you needed to "REPLY to ALL" to get the list address.
False. I INTENDED the reply to go to you and the list because both you
and the list are appropriate recipients of the message. In this case
it's not a failure of my user interface to provide me with more or
easier-to-use options - it's the fact that we don't have the necessary
protocol support.
It relates to the concept that the email output generation of a LIST
Distribution is not the same as would be the 1 to 1 email direct
transport
where the MAIL FROM is persistent. It is NOT persistent in a List
Distribution.
The envelope is different. The payload is the same, modulo List-*
fields. We are talking about the payload.
Please understand what is being said here first before injected more
stubborn responses that lead no where.
What I understand is that you're making this stuff up, trying to
interpret the mail protocol in your own way without regard for
interoperability or other people's experience.
Keith