On Thu December 9 2004 14:33, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:01:26AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jacob Palme <jpalme(_at_)dsv(_dot_)su(_dot_)se> writes:
A related issue is if a message arrives in two copies, one with the
recipient as personal recipient, the other via a mailing list. When this
happens, the cause is almost always faulty handling by the sender's MUA,
and the intention is that the message should only be sent to/via the
list. So in this case, the best receiving MUA behaviour is probably to
completely suppress the personal copy of the message.
This is the way that I feel about it too, but as other people have
commented in this discussion, not everyone feels that way and some people
really want to get those personal copies.
yes, I actually am mostly interested, for some lists, on messages that
are direct responses to me or followups on things I have written, - and
where it is likely that I am in noted in the cc-field. [...]
Thus the direct mail is the most important for me in these cases,
and it should not be hidden or delayed.
My new idea is that the preference could be noted by one or more headers
from the originator, and the responder and the mailing list exploder
could then behave accordingly. I think this has not been proposed before
here, but then I have not read all mail...
This needs a great deal more explanation before I can comment:
whose preference?
for what?
communicated to whom and/or to what?
by who or by what?
used how?
for what purpose?
in what manner?
is it scalable (multiple authors, multiple recipients, multiple lists)?
is yet another header field appropriate (vs. some other configuration
setting, etc.)?
how would it interact with existing fields?
what about users of web interfaces to lists?
The answers to those questions don't seem clear, even in the
context of the preceding discussion (and I have retained those parts
that seem relevant above).