Re: @Scott Bennett

[Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx>]

     On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:18:50 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers <tor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:14:29 -0600 Jim McClanahan wrote:
>>> Ah, I see.  It is the duplicate messages from you that were confusing
>>> me.
>>> 
>>> Why duplicate messages?  As somebody else has pointed out recently, the
>>> fact that I can post on or-talk means I am subscribed to or-talk.
>> 
>> Just standard netiquette for followups to messages posted on mailing
>> lists.
>
>RFC 1855 does not say any such thing, and it's usually frowned upon on
>virtually every mailing list that I frequent. YMMV.
>
     Did someone claim that RFC 1855 said something on this issue?
     On every list I've been on in more than two decades with the sole
exception of OR-TALK, sending a followup directly to the author of the
message being followed up in addition to a copy to the list has been
the norm.  Individuals have not always followed that practice consistently,
but it has been the expected practice for as long as I've participated on
mailing lists.
     I do not know how/why the practice got started, but I can offer some
speculations.  Many mailing lists are also available as digests.  Without
knowing whether the author of an item to which one is following up might
be subscribed to the digest rather than the list, there is a clear advantage
to sending an immediate copy of one's followup to that other author, so
that that other author need not wait till the next issuance of a digest to
see the followup.  Another situation is that many lists allow posting from
people who are not subscribed to those lists.  In such cases, the direct
followups are crucial lest the author of the item being followed up never
see the followup item.
     By the tone of your followup, I infer that you do not want direct
copies of followups, so I am only sending this one to the list.


                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************