OFFTOPIC Re: [Mailman-Users] Archive URL in postings (2.1b3)

John Buttery john at
Thu Oct 31 17:35:01 CET 2002

* J C Lawrence <claw at> [2002-10-29 19:51:03 -0800]:
> John Buttery <john at> wrote:
> > "Lie" is kinda an interesting way to put it, but I think we all know
> > what he means.  How can you say that readdressing a mail (which is
> > what you're doing here) isn't a "lie" the way he's referring to it?
> > It's in plain black and white.
> Sure it is.  You assuming a certain set of semantic connotations for the
> To: and Cc: headers and then inferentially assume that everybody else
> operates on the same understanding of those headers.  The problem is
> that its just not true.  Your assumptions are neither universal or
> necessarily shared.

  Thinking that the address in the To: field is an address that the
sender originally targeted directly may not be universal, but I think
it's pretty close.  *shrug*

> > Well, OK then, how would you differentiate this new behaviour from a
> > hypothetical message I might have sent pre-upgrade that _did_ have
> > your address in the To: and the list in the CC:?  
> One has a List-ID header, one doesn't.  
> One has an In-Reply-To that references my prior post, one doesn't.

  You're right about this, I hadn't fully thought things out before I
said that.  However, it doesn't solve the problem of not knowing whether
one of these list postings is the first of two duplicates, or just a
normal posting.  Someone just posted something about the In-Reply-To:
header that may or may not refute that part, but it's moot because your
point stands on the List-ID: header alone.

> > (Of course, I acknowledge that sending a copy directly to a person who
> > is already subscribed to the list is a bit silly/redundant, but I
> > don't see that that dilutes the point at all.  In five seconds I can
> > think of a case where this would happen...I see a mail off the list, I
> > don't know someone is subscribed, so I send them my followup but also
> > CC the list because I think it pertains there also.  With this new
> > function, you've just erased anybody's ability to tell the difference
> > between those two situations.)  
> Ignoring the aspects of etiquette in quoting a private email in a public
> forum, this is also not a problem for the same reasons as above. 

  True, and I take that statement back for the same reasons as above.
:p  And, of course, I was not encouraging people to post private emails
on-list, which is a MASSIVE etiquette breach...I was just trying to
point out a situation in which "information loss" would happen.

 John Buttery
                                     (Web page temporarily unavailable)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the Mailman-Users mailing list