Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: android Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Apple releases OS X 10.10.3 beta with new Photos app Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 19:03:36 +0100 (CET) Organization: news.individual.net Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net 72L93cs11ZvCJ1fgRzL3cA/ssf6SzJvYznN+2JDWEV5MtAf+fC Cancel-Lock: sha1:oQId6UYunmcw02PdZrsOiL5ncdU= X-Newsreader: PiaoHong.Usenet.Client.Free:1.65 X-Archive: encrypt Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:70455 Jolly Roger Wrote in message: > On 2015-03-04, android wrote: >> Jolly Roger Wrote in message: >>> >>> Maybe. Usenet etiquette (and my news client) encourages using the >>> Followup-to header when posting to multiple groups to limit followup >>> postings to the single most relevant group. >>> >>> >>> >>> ...etc... >>> >>> From RFC 1036: >>> >>> "2.2.3. Followup-To >>> >>> This line has the same format as "Newsgroups". If present, follow- >>> up messages are to be posted to the newsgroup or newsgroups listed >>> here. If this line is not present, follow-ups are posted to the >>> newsgroup or newsgroups listed in the "Newsgroups" line." >>> >>> In this case, my news client suggested the header and I figured since >>> the announcement was mainly about the Mac OS X operating system, I'd >>> oblige and set the Followup-to header to comp.sys.mac.system, which >>> amounted to me pressing the Return key on my keyboard. It's simple >>> enough for anyone reading to see that's where follow-up posts will go. I >>> suppose it could be argued that since both groups are technically >>> relevant, one could omit the header. I don't see that it makes all that >>> much difference either way, though. And I tend to err on the side of >>> caution if possible - when it occurs to me, anyway. : ) >>> >>> >>> >> I really don't think that this is common practice. And that that's a >> good thing. > > Well we can certainly disagree about this. : ) > >> If an article is posted to group A and B with follow up set to A only >> and is commented by poster in B who don't subscribe to A then s/he >> would not se that reply or any to his or her own... Weirdnes! > > It's still good etiquette. And users are in full control over where they > post. It's just not as big a deal as some would make it out to be. > It might be ?good netiquette? or not. The document that you refer to is not trying to impose it on the user. The default is that follow ups are posted to all groups. And that is a good and by the user expected behavior. -- Bats can't tell us apart! ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/