| 1 |
On Fri, March 21, 2014 12:59, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:50:23 +0100 |
| 3 |
> "J. Roeleveld" <joost@××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Tom, |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Please reply to list. No need to include me in the recipient list. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Please filter duplicate mails. No need to tell each other this. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I filter on the server, using SIEVE-scripts. |
| 12 |
Please provide the correct syntax I need to do this. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
You are the only one causing duplicate emails, all others on this list do |
| 15 |
NOT cause duplicate emails. |
| 16 |
This means the cause is on your side and the solution should then also be |
| 17 |
on your side. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html |
| 20 |
> http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I disagree with those. Seen those arguments before along with the opposite |
| 23 |
versions. Mailing lists where a reply does not work are broken. Mailing |
| 24 |
lists where I always end up with duplicate replies don't stay used by |
| 25 |
myself for very long. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
>> Also, no need to reopen a closed mail |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> A thread can't be closed by its individuals; you can choose to not |
| 30 |
> reply, but that doesn't withhold the ability for others to reply. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
True, but a mail-thread that hasn't had a reply for over a month is |
| 33 |
usually considered closed. It's nice that you decide to catch up with your |
| 34 |
emails, but please then take care not to flood inboxes as well. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Joost |
Archives