Re: [PATCH] Lose perl dependency. (fwd)

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jan 21, 2007, 22:35 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0701212323580.22628@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <87vej0gh4k.fsf@morpheus.local>

Hi,

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, David Kågedal wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:
> 
> > I only speak for myself, but I always prefer to address my message's 
> > To: header to the person I am primarily talking to, while leaving 
> > other people on Cc: line (which usually includes the list address).

I have to agree: if the mail is adressed directly to me, I am much more likely to read it. So I am quite annoyed by answers to my emails, which do not have me in To: or Cc:.

> I, on the other hand, have recently been annoyed by having my inbox 
> filled with mails that I already can read on the list (actually the 
> gmane newsgruop).  So there is probably not a single good answer.

Well, RFC 1855 "Netiquette guidelines" states in 2.1.2 "for mail:":

    - Watch cc's when replying.  Don't continue to include
      people if the messages have become a 2-way conversation.

(I myself am guilty of not culling people when no longer quoting them.)

The statement from the RFC obviously assumes that you reply to the author of the message (and since it came from a mailing list, if it is of interest to the list, you should Cc: that, too).

IMHO it is all to easy to filter duplicate messages, and generally not possible to identify replies to _your_ mails when the reply is not sent to _you_, but to the list.

IOW I agree with Junio.

Ciao, Dscho