[linux-elitists] Re: CC considered harmful

Ben Finney ben@benfinney.id.au
Mon Feb 23 18:40:56 PST 2004


On 23-Feb-2004, Don Marti wrote:
> begin Ben Finney quotation of Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 11:50:46AM +1100:
> > Doesn't quite sound like the thing.  The objection is to posting to
> > the list, and Cc to an address *which is already subscribed to the
> > list*.  It's legitimate to Cc an external party, for their info or
> > further input, if they're not on the list and it's somehow
> > inappropriate to ask them to subscribe.
> 
> This really doesn't come up that much, and it's easy enough to forward
> the list mail to the non-subscriber.  Remember, the the non-subscriber
> can't reply to the list, so someone would have to forward his or her
> reply anyway.

Yep, understood.  Just giving it as an example of a valid use of Cc
along with mailing lists (and one that doesn't fall under the hated
cc-to-someone-already-on-thelist case).
> 
> > Are you proposing that all such cases be canned?  Or that you (as
> > list admin) will make that decision in each case?
> 
> I'll throw them all out and if it's important the person can post
> again with one To: address.

Sounds fine to me, and in keeping with the list admin philosophy already
documented.

My reason for asking was that it seemed likely your solution would be
something else; re-reading my question, it could have been worded
better.  Apologies for the apparance of a whine.

-- 
 \      "There is more to life than increasing its speed."  -- Mahatma |
  `\                                                            Gandhi |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20040224/d390ccae/attachment.pgp 


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list