On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 14:08:36 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Wednesday 31 August 2016 11:31:18 Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > On Wednesday 31 August 2016 15:45:42 Mark Fletcher wrote: > > > Well and > > > good -- actually, very good, because it prevents me making the > > > stupid mistake I frequently make of cc-ing the poster of the mail I > > > am replying to. > > > > But it doesn't prevent Nicolas from deliberately cc-ing most of the > > rest of us when replying to our mails; which is exceedingly annoying > > and is NOT in compliance with the CoC. > > > > It is, of course, and annoyance one can easily avoid by blacklisting > > him. > > > > Lisi > > I do not know if its CoC correct, but my copy of kmail, courtesy the > Trinity people, shows that a "reply-to-list", goes only to the list, > while a "reply-all" goes to the list, and CC's the poster, in this case > Lisi.
That's very odd. A reply to some entity should go To: them. Cc: is a carbon copy for someone who is not being replied to. > And a simple reply says only to the list. That seems odd as it should > reply to Lisi. Something in the list headers apparently makes the list > address a higher priority. So I use reply-all, then nuke the list > address by hand, and change the Cc: line to a To: line if I want to PM > Lisi. You ought not to have to promote an address in that way when you reply-ALL. > This works for me, and I am rarely chided about it. I would much druther > the reply-all kept track of the posters involved in the thread and CC'd > them if I click on the reply-all button, but that would be a memory > eating monster of a headache for kmail. FWIW, I turn off kmails thread > follower long ago, so I see them in their order of arrival here. > > Those who missed a reply with valuable info in it because they aren't > subscribed, expecting to be Cc'd for that whole thread, should > subscribe, problem solved. > > If our Mr. George were to use an email agent that did observe a similar > protocol, that would stand a good chance of shutting down threads such > as this one. But that would be breaking a perfectly good MUA. The problem boils down to somebody adding addresses to Mail-Followup-To, which has a worse effect that just CCing people when replying to d-u, something that people already moan about. I already defend myself against the latter with Reply-To: set to the list. Now it appears I have to defend myself against committing the former by dropping Mail-Followup-To. Unfortunately mutt cannot divine whether an address in a received Mail-Followup-To was put there by the unsubscribed owner, or gratuitously by someone else. It either passes them all along, or drops them all, AFAICT. Cheers, David.
