[Wylug-discuss] Uptimes

[Peter Corlett]

[This was also directly emailed to me. Even a dog will learn not to do
something when you tell them off repeatedly. I can only conclude that a dog
is smarter than the average WYLUGger.]

Martyn Ranyard  <ranyardm at lineone.net> wrote:
> Quoting Peter Corlett <abuse at cabal.org.uk>:
>> So senders are arrogant enough to think that their post is so vitally
>> important that they have to send a second copy that bypasses list
>> filtering. Because clearly I'm incapable of judging for myself how
>> important traffic on a given list is. (Clue: wylug-* lists are right near
>> the bottom of the list of stuff I check, because of the lousy S/N ratio.)
> Not necessarily - if an MUA doesn't have a Reply-To-List option, then they
> are doing the logical thing - they are Replying to All.

Well, "Reply to All" is an easy way to get the list address into the To:/Cc:
fields. Then you spend, oh, all of two seconds deleting all but the list
submission address. Easy peasy - it's not even difficult with the despised
Outlook.

>> Why expect me to look at the headers, when the sender clearly didn't
>> bother to.
> What makes you think they didn't? They simply click reply-to-all. The MUA
> didn't but that's life - MUAs are imperfect because the RFCs were not
> forward-thinking enough.

The RFCs are fine. The problem appears to be PEBKAC.

[...]
> No, you were criticising my choice of MUA, which is no worse than many,
> many others, and the reason in most MUAs people click Reply to All is
> because the Reply-To munging is not done on the discuss list. Hence my
> mentioning of it.

And the reason they don't check who they're sending mail to before sending
it is...?

The problem is not technical, but social.

--
PGP key ID E85DC776 - finger abuse at mooli.org.uk for full key