Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?

["Garreau\, Alexandre" <galex-713 galex-713 eu>]

Le 29/05/2018 à 01h35, Ángel a écrit :
> On 2018-05-28 at 23:21 +0200, Garreau, Alexandre wrote:
> > On 2018-05-28 at 15:40, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> > > Reply-To-List is the only option anyone should ever use, IMNSHO.  Doing
> > > anything else is bad netiquette.
> >
> > Really? When beginning first to use mailing lists I was curious about
> > such a practice, but I tried to read again Netiquitte and didn’t found
> > anything related [1]. 
>
> People have different views on this.

Until then I keep being put “To” of mails coming from GNU mailing lists,
and am happy with this due to the semantical meaning of “To” I
constructed in my mind.  But how of other views?  how widespread is each
one?  why?

> > Also that means if I didn’t subscribed to this
> > list (I almost didn’t, then did, since Evolution was my first mail
> > user-agent, a major one, and I might be interested in its, heh,
> > evolution) I would never have received an answer, 
>
> Generally, if you write to a mailing list, you are expected to either be
> subscribed (in fact, you often can't send there without subscribing
> first), or politely request to be CCed in your email.

Oh, what a good idea! I might even add this in a signature (then why not
to be put in the To when appropriate?)?  Or what about a special header
to convey a such meaning so that to disambiguate the meaning of To and
Cc headers?

> Also, maybe you are not interested in receiving everything, but failing
> everything else you should at least check the archives for replies.
>
> (there are also other use cases, like people reading the mailing list
> through a mail2news gateway)

I dislike web (archives) :/ still nntp would be a clean option.

> Some mailing lists function differently, however, such as those support
> emails which are actually backed by a mailing list, in which the
> customer is not (and can not be) a subscriber. Thus, there it is known
> that the customer only receives emails explicitly directed to him, and
> Reply to all must be used.

Oh, I recall sometimes having mail returned because of a such mailing
list policy!  Maybe then an unambiguous and formal usage may be not to
add To/Cc on mailing-lists disallowing unsubscribed mail address to send
mail through them?  Then maybe special mailing-list headers on mail
could also convey a such meaning to be more widely known by user-agents…

But isn’t it complicated to keep a that complicated behavior, with
headers semantics depending of context, mailing-list, people, etc. and
obligating people to have more complex mail formats, understanding,
usage and maybe messaging systems (mailing lists, newsgroups, etc.)
rather than slightly more complicated user-agents, with a lot more
simpler semantics?

> > as I believe neither mailman nor sympa do have the (complicated)
> > feature of keeping track of subjects, references and reply-to headers
> > so that to send to unsubscribed senders to the mailing-list messages
> > [which] answer or references what they sent. Especially that would
> > impedes the ability to privately react and discuss about the sent may
> > privately before to maybe answer back a maybe more reflected and
> > collective answer. Yet I guess that too might be considered bad
> > netiquette, as until then I only twice were answered on a mailing
> > list without having been directly mailed: once before my mail, and
> > once with this one.
>
> That would be a bad idea for a mailing list to do automatically.
> It should actually be a user subscription option. In addition to receive
> emails / don't receive / receive as a digest, you would have a "receive
> only mails from threads where I have participated" option.
> And yes, that would be a complicated feature to implement.

I thought to such checkboxes/options, such as, for instance “mail me too
altogether as other mailing-list members” or “mail me a remainder” or
“don’t mail me messages with such and such topics / subjects / tags /
headers / content-warning” or here, either “don’t mail me again mails
that are already also addressed to me through To, Cc or Bcc” or,
possibly, but a bit more complicated, “don’t mail me first-messages of
each thread / each topic” (not the same thing as a thread may change
topic by having one of its participant changing its subject line).

But it won’t be possible to set a such setting for someone who never
subscribed, hence, never were exposed to such checkboxes.  And my
“receive only mail from threads where I have participated” idea was
“only receive mails from threads I started”, and explicitly directed
towards *unsubscribed* members.  Also your “receive only mails from
threads where I have participated” would require from the user, if not
basing on the subject line, to download (and extract from the month-wide
mbox file) the given mail, to answer it.  Because otherwise they would
never receive mails at all, then could never answer.  Or then that would
be a really special “subscription” where you never receive any mail at
all, except answers to the threads *you* started… and that’s the default
behavior of any mailing list allowing to post while being unsubscribed,
when their members add the aforementioned person in the “To:” or “Cc:”
headers.

> I would consider that I am replying to the person whose text I am
> quoting above.
> (Or rather, i am probably replying to the *ideas* expressed therein, not
> as much as the human who typed them)

Wow, much interesting idea, I like it. Thank you.