Tugger the SLUGger!SLUG Mailing List Archives

Re: [chat] List Policy

Jon Biddell wrote:

> > While it may limit spam, it also means people have to aggregate the entire
> > list to their weekly bandwidth usage.
> I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to get at here, Minh - do you
> mean that subscribing would add more traffic to your system (yes, of course)
> - why on earth would anyone want to post to a list they do not subscribe to
> (and, hence, cannot see replies to unless people reply directly to them, thus
> negating the benefit of sharing knowledge on the list) is beyond me - unless
> it's to spam people, in which case they should be killed with extreme
> prejudice.....:-)

I don't know how you reply to messages, but when I reply to messages I often
check who I reply to and who I've included. For example I've noticed that you
included the SLUG list (slug@xxxxxxxxxxx) in your email. I've removed that
because I know it's not appropriate to post this in there.

People can make use of Cc: or Bcc:'s to include mail lists and other addressees,
and still reply to the sender of a message. They don't have to negate anything.
But by using a Reply-To: preference, you're coercing other clients to respond to
that specific email address even when they're using their reply-to-all function.
Clients that honor Reply-To: preferences delete any previous Cc: or To: headers
and therefore kills the "history" of people included in the discussion - the
result of assuming that people you're replying to are actually subscribed to the
list and spend every waking moment of their life monitoring mail in the list,
hoping that they didn't miss anything that were supposed to be read by them of
which -haven't- been addressed to them.

I think you can't get your mind around the fact that people do post to news
groups and mailing lists without wanting to subscribe to them. Maybe they don't
use the list that often. In my case I thought the SLUG list was also for any
technical questions or a resource whereby people can selectively choose which
questions they reply to and the manner in which they reply. I didn't know it was
one of those militantly on-topic discussion groups.

That's like saying that everybody should have a mobile phone because they use
telephones. To that I say that not everybody -wants- to be contactable 24/7.
This is anologous to subscribing to a list, and having to download tones of mail
you don't read or follow that's not relevant to you. So if you think of it this
way, forcing people to subscribe to a list is advocating spam.

Now I'm not flaming anybody. I might come across that way because nobody likes
me. To the latter, I say I don't care.