CC considered harmful (was Re: [linux-elitists] [RANT] Debian the Elitist Distribution?)
Mon Feb 23 16:50:17 PST 2004
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 12:02:47PM -0500, Aaron Sherman (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 09:04, Andrew wrote:
> > > > Tell that to people who are on list digests, or tired or waiting
> > > > for slow list servers.
> > >
> > > That's their own problem. They can also include a signature line
> > > that says "I'm a dumbass on a digest list/slow list server, please
> > > CC me directly." In my own skewed perception of reality I conclude
> > > that people who are communicating via mailing lists prefer to have
> > > the communication stay on the list.
> > Well, since it's been brought up, and the usual round of "but I want my
> > mailbox to be the way I want it" responses are all in place, let me
> > analyze this from a technical standpoint:
> > To start at the high level, the CC/TO distinction is semantic. There is
> > no difference in the way the mailer will handle these messages (and the
> > SMTP envelope will be the same when it reaches your mailbox regardless
> > of which header slot you were in).
> There *is* a distinction in how MDAs will (or can) process this
> information. Previously discussed.
> I already trim dupe posts. Private messages tend to arrive prior to
> list posts
Yes, they do. This was mentioned before in the 'tired of waiting for slow
list servers' bit. ;-P
But seriously, you've said you don't want CCs, fine.
Why do you bother with this sig? You're more interested in hearing your
own voice than listening to anyone else.
My honest opinion is that you took the discussion about package formats
a little too seriously, and decided to Go Mental (TM) over the CCing
rather than continue technical dialog.
More information about the linux-elitists