From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Oct 04 2000 - 04:11:46 CDT
In <rjd7hixj3k.fsf@ssv2.dina.kvl.dk> Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:
>Would "the message was posted to a newsgroup where it is socially
>acceptable to post messages without reading the group" count as a
>indication of a different preference?
>Some (non-USENET) newsgroups exists for the purpose of reporting bugs,
>the people reporting the bugs are not obliged to read the group. In
>such a group I'd typically CC followups to the original poster, unless
>the poster explicitly indicated CC's were unwanted.
And if MCT is available, the poster indeed has that explicit mechanism.
I am hearing conflicting suggestions for the default state (MCT absent).
Some want it one way and some want it the other. My feeling is that the
default state should be rather weak (probably Ought), on the grounds that
people who really care can easily include MCT (either way around) if they
are bothered.
Note also that a user may not always remember exactly where his original
article went, or whether he requested email replies or not (especially if
he adopts different policies for different groups, or different kinds of
topic). Therefore, the P&M header could be useful to help him keep track.
As to putting P&M in the body as well, I am again hearing conflicting
views. Some of us have a dislike at specifying body contents in any way,
and others have said it is only an interim measure until agents learn to
do sensible things with P&M. Would you like me to put in a "MAY mention it
in the body"?
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5