On 12/01/2018 05:49 PM, Ralph Seichter wrote:> * Michael A. Peters: > >> Netiquette posts are just someone's opinion, and they often don't take >> into account the vastly different way different types of minds work. > > Mailing list netiquette has been around for decades, for good reasons. > If Joe User's mind "works differently", Joe needs to make the effort to > adapt to existing conventions instead of expecting conventions (and > thereby other people) to change. > > -Ralph >That is the opinion of some. But - I would wager that over 95% of the time when someone hits the reply button on a list post, their intent is to reply to the list. If netiquette is why that sometimes fails, then netiquette does not match common usage and is the problem. I would wager that most people are clueless to how mail headers work, not should most people need to.
* Michael A. Peters:> I would wager that over 95% of the time when someone hits the reply > button on a list post, their intent is to reply to the list.You'd lose that wager. This list, like many others, has a "List-Post" header embedded in every single message posted. People need to use smart MUAs (or the proper key combination) to reply to the list. As part of my job, I process literally hundreds of mailing list messages on a nearly daily basis, and never found it taxing or confusing. Existing conventions make it easier for me to handle this load, and I have zero patience for people who refuse to use the right tools for the job. -Ralph
On 02/12/2018 03:05, Michael A. Peters wrote: [...]> But - I would wager that over 95% of the time when someone hits the > reply button on a list post, their intent is to reply to the list.Even if it's 99%: What is the lesser risk if someone get's it wrong? Apart from the situation that people send mails over the mailing list with "for X.Y." in the subject and no one knows how private that should be. Obviously, it's absolutely not private because it goes to - at least - all folks on the mailing list.> If netiquette is why that sometimes fails, then netiquette does not > match common usage and is the problem.The netiquette is more than just a piece of "documentation of most of the people think how it should work". Please bring serious an factual problems with the netiquette as such and not just "with some MUA it's not possible" (because it's possible with really *every* MUA - with some it's just a little more work than with others) or "most people ignore it because ...> I would wager that most people are clueless to how mail headers work, > not should most people need to.... they are clueless". In consequence, the clueless people should define how things should work? Well, there are better solutions than that IMHO. It's quite the opposite: People should have a *basic* knowledge of the tools they use - for email e.g. the To:-header has no technical meaning. Let's hope that people who do not know how to use a tool - e.g. like a hammer - doesn't use that tool in the first place .... MfG, Bernd -- Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd at petrovitsch.priv.at LUGA : http://www.luga.at
On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 03:58:53AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:> On 02/12/2018 03:05, Michael A. Peters wrote: > [...] > > But - I would wager that over 95% of the time when someone hits the > > reply button on a list post, their intent is to reply to the list. > > Even if it's 99%: What is the lesser risk if someone get's it wrong? > > Apart from the situation that people send mails over the mailing list > with "for X.Y." in the subject and no one knows how private that should > be. Obviously, it's absolutely not private because it goes to - at least > - all folks on the mailing list. > > > If netiquette is why that sometimes fails, then netiquette does not > > match common usage and is the problem. > The netiquette is more than just a piece of "documentation of most of > the people think how it should work". > > Please bring serious an factual problems with the netiquette as such and > not just "with some MUA it's not possible" (because it's possible with > really *every* MUA - with some it's just a little more work than with > others) or "most people ignore it because ... > > > I would wager that most people are clueless to how mail headers work, > > not should most people need to. > > ... they are clueless". > > In consequence, the clueless people should define how things should work? > > Well, there are better solutions than that IMHO. > > It's quite the opposite: People should have a *basic* knowledge of the > tools they use - for email e.g. the To:-header has no technical meaning. > > Let's hope that people who do not know how to use a tool - e.g. like a > hammer - doesn't use that tool in the first place .... > > MfG, > Berndthat is pretty unrealistic and I don't agree with it anyway. Email should be intitive> -- > Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd at petrovitsch.priv.at > LUGA : http://www.luga.at-- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013