Subject:
|
Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Apr 2002 10:00:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1853 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.suggestions, William R. Ward writes:
> > William R Ward <bill@wards.net> writes:
>
> > > The standard NNTP behavior is to set "Followup-To: poster" in the
> > > header.
> > >
> > > I'm doing that on this message, let's see if it works.
> >
> > Looks like it works just fine (I overrode the followup-to rule in
> > order to post this message). If you try to reply to the above message
> > in NNTP it sends e-mail. Does it do the same for web and SMTP users?
> >
> > If so, we've got our answer - put it in the FAQ and call this one
> > done.
>
> Strongly disagree. As I said offline (and that's annoying in and of itself,
> having to say things twice because of an not easily overrideable FUT), this
> breaks threading. Since from the web there is no easy way to override the
> FUT without starting a new post or anchoring somewhere else, it changes a
> suggestion of where one ought to FUT to into a mandate that cannot be
> circumvented.
>
> Anything that breaks threading is bad... c.f. the flogging Ben Whytecross
> got because his mail program was deranged and broke threads.
What is it with Seppo's, the english language, and vowels...sometimes they
drop them, and in other cases they pop up where you least expect them [it's
Whytcross, not Whytecross !]
Anyway...the e-mail program was:
1) not mine, but one run by the company that contracts our company
2) not deranged...just configured correctly. [e-mails should have no need to
thread. feel free to provide examples of where threading would be NEEDED
though :) ]
3) not breaking threads...the messages posted by e-mail were all replying to
postings, but the receiver just didn't put them in the correct place :)
Benjamin Whytcross
[Ready for a new flame-war :) ]
> If there were to be any FAQ entry at all on this, my vote would be that this
> technique *not* be used as it breaks things.
>
> FUTs are, at the root, suggestions, not mandates. Proper ettiquette suggests
> careful use of them, yes, but it is rude to prevent the responder from
> setting FUT as he sees fit if he has good reason for doing so.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
| (...) Strongly disagree. As I said offline (and that's annoying in and of itself, having to say things twice because of an not easily overrideable FUT), this breaks threading. Since from the web there is no easy way to override the FUT without (...) (22 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
