* David T-G <addresswithheldasdavidthinksitissuperfluous> [020313 13:28]: > I don't really care to have the particular email address I used > for a mailing list posting put up where folks will notice it; > I use that for sorting and so I want folks replying directly > to me to use my regular address, which I include in my sig.
well - I use the address in the To: line for sorting mails sent via a mailing list - and I expect people to simply reply to my address in the From: line. Maybe this sounds quote weird to you - but I think I'm in good company there. > And I just don't really care to see addresses > in attributions; I think it's superfluous. yeah, right. > % how can you "keep the parent message" > % when you never received it at all? > Why would I have received this message, then? you might get a message - but you might not have received its parent. i think this happens fairly often - especially when you join a new list. > % you might just have joined the list - > So you're saying that, for the very few messages a > newbie would see without the benefit of having received > the past messages you should use such an attribution. exactly. > % or be reading it via some archive. > If it's in the archive then the parent probably is, too, no? even when an archive has the parent message to the one you are replying to - it simply takes another lookup of the parent article. to get at the address if it was not included in the attribution. and with all those thread-breaking mailers out there this lookup can be a PITA. > Or are we going to take into account the single point in > time when the list starts being archived, assuming that > that's before the lists's first message? this is yet another issue - but basically the same as with soemone who just joined the list, right? > % same here - I usually reply to people directly. > % however, I do send BCCs of my reply to "P2" .. > Why a bcc? Why not include the parent's > author in the To: or Cc: lines? "group-reply". some mailers offer no other choice to reply to the list *also*. and this adds up addresses in the TO/CC lines. with a copy via BCC this won't happen. > So if you know that this person might not be reading the list, > you've probably seen postings from him before, right? > So you have his address somewhere already anyway. and how probable is that exactly? > % not be reading the list/newsgroup any more. > % in that case I need the address of that person > % and I usually take it from the attribution. > Ah. Good for you. Your attribution fits your behavior. I suppose that the address in the attribution also helps other people to associate the text with a person - and also saves time as there is no need to look it up when it is needed. however, unattributed texts won't help anyone - especially when included in further followups. > % the MID is not supposed to be read by humans - > % so you can leave this in the header. > Oh, but why should the email address be read by humans? > After all, people don't come up to me in conversation > and say "Hi, davidtg@JPO, how have you been?" but > instead "Hi, David T-G, how have you been?". I think I would not say either. Still, an address with a name does make a difference - especially with all those "Joe Doe" and "David X-Y" out there. ;-) > Ahhh... I get it. You've removed the quoted paragraph separators, > which I find valuable as they provide some context for how the > conversation is flowing, as well as blank lines between my > text and yours, which I find valuable for readability. No. I mean those empty quote lines at the start of quoted text: like this one: -. .-------------' | v > % > % > as the next guy, XX XXXX XX XXXXXXX XXXX XX XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX > % > I should obviouslX XXXX XX XXXXXXX XXX XX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX Such a line *before* a paragraph is superfluous. At least I dont see any use for it. Do you? > % besides, if your "ls" gets confused with > % those short date form then let us know. > Since ls sorts alphabetically, daily log files named like > 991130, 991201, 991202, ..., 000101, 000102, ..., 020101, 020102 > will not show up in that order when one does an ls. So - did you ever have a problem with this date format in my pages? Do you think you ever will? Do you think you could mistake 000101 with 1900-01-01? Or maybe mistake a date like 991231 with 2099-12-31? > I can't even pump ls through sort, with or without a -n flag, > since AFAIK there is no "minus short date form" flag. > You get the point, I'm sure. "gls -lS" *shrug* [Sven's holy war signature] > Now I *like* this sig :-) I'm firmly in the vi, less, 72, text, and sh > or bash camps myself, and I note that you didn't include an "I hate tabs > anyway" position, and we all know where I stand on indent_string :-) good point - I should include a hint on vim's "expandtab" option.. ;-) Sven [enjoying the off topic thread] -- Sven Guckes [EMAIL PROTECTED] MailList "(A Guide to) Life on Mailing Lists" MailList http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/faq/maillist.html MailList HOWTO edit messages and avoid basic mistakes
