From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: T Ziomek Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:32:59 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message In-Reply-To: <20090601200012.D8869832E416@gemini.denx.de> References: <20090601175808.BD41D832E416@gemini.denx.de> <4A242071.1010806@freescale.com> <20090601200012.D8869832E416@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <20090601203258.GG8553@email.mot.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 10:00:12PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Scott Wood, > > In message <4A242071.1010806@freescale.com> you wrote: > > > > > there is an increasing number of postings with loooooong lists of > > > recipients (10 addresses and more); usually several of these are > > > regular and active users of this mailing list so this is actually > > > redundant; > > > > It is not redundant -- including a person in the CC list brings the mail > > to their attention faster (and with less chances of missing it) than if > > they have to pick it out of the list. > > An email message is a message is a message, isn't it? The message on > the list and the Cc: are identical, aren't they? Yes, but how one's MUA / mail client handles them may *not* be identi- cal. Quite a few people configure their MUA to prioritize messages based on whether they are on the To: list, CC:, BCC:, or none of the above (i.e. by list membership). > What is the difference whether you receive one or two identical copies > of a message? It's a hassle and distraction to deal with duplicates. > > How about reconfiguring the list software instead? > > I see no reason for that yet. +1 for not restricting the # of addressees absent a reason other than "some of them are often redundant". Tom -- A: Because it breaks the logical | flow of the message. | Email to user 'CTZ001' | at 'email.mot.com' Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? |