Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #231031 > unrolled thread

debian-user lsit information and guidelines (posted monthly)

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  debian-user lsit information and guidelines (posted monthly) "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2021-01-23 20:30 +0100
    Re: debian-user lsit information and guidelines (posted monthly) Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-01-23 22:10 +0100
      Re: debian-user lsit information and guidelines (posted monthly) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-01-23 22:10 +0100
      Re: debian-user lsit information and guidelines (posted monthly) "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2021-01-24 00:20 +0100
        Re: debian-user lsit information and guidelines (posted monthly) Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-01-24 00:40 +0100
    Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam John Kaufmann <kaufmann@nb.net> - 2021-01-25 07:20 +0100
      Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-01-25 08:00 +0100
        Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-01-25 10:10 +0100
          Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam John Kaufmann <kaufmann@nb.net> - 2021-01-25 14:30 +0100
        Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-25 10:30 +0100
          Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam John Kaufmann <kaufmann@nb.net> - 2021-01-25 14:40 +0100
        Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam John Kaufmann <kaufmann@nb.net> - 2021-01-25 14:20 +0100
          Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2021-01-25 15:00 +0100
            Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam Pierre Frenkiel <frenkiel@gmail.com> - 2021-01-25 18:00 +0100
            Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-01-26 00:50 +0100
      Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2021-01-25 08:40 +0100
        Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam John Kaufmann <kaufmann@nb.net> - 2021-01-25 16:50 +0100
      Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2021-01-25 12:40 +0100
      Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-01-25 14:20 +0100
        Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2021-01-25 14:40 +0100
          Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-01-25 15:00 +0100
            Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2021-01-25 15:30 +0100
            Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-01-25 16:00 +0100
            Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam brainfart@posteo.net - 2021-01-25 17:40 +0100
            Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam John Kaufmann <kaufmann@nb.net> - 2021-01-25 17:40 +0100
              Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-01-25 21:00 +0100
                Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam John Kaufmann <kaufmann@nb.net> - 2021-01-25 21:20 +0100
          Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-01-25 16:00 +0100
      Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2021-01-25 14:20 +0100
        Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam John Kaufmann <kaufmann@nb.net> - 2021-01-25 17:20 +0100
          Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-01-25 20:30 +0100
            Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam John Kaufmann <kaufmann@nb.net> - 2021-01-25 21:30 +0100
              Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-01-26 08:10 +0100
    Re: debian-user list information and guidelines : don't use CC mail  list Robbi Nespu <robbinespu@gmail.com> - 2021-01-26 04:40 +0100
      Re: debian-user list information and guidelines : don't use CC mail  list <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-01-26 11:30 +0100
      Re: debian-user list information and guidelines : don't use CC mail  list Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-01-26 12:00 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#231097 — Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 08:29:54AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:17:34PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > Are those modifications added by the Debian mailing list? That'd be
> > strange, because I don't see them...
> 
> No.  They're done on the receiving end.  I'm just letting you know that
> there's some horrible shit out here in the real world.

Definitely =:-o

Sometimes I get the impression that some economic actors hate mail
because it can't be fenced-off as easily as the "social" silos and
are doing their best to kill it.

A pity that pgp/gpg hasn't caught on better.

Cheers
 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231099 — Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:56:04PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> Sometimes I get the impression that some economic actors hate mail
> because it can't be fenced-off as easily as the "social" silos and
> are doing their best to kill it.

That may be true, but it's not the reasoning behind the changes at
my site.

The primary driving force behind the changes I've been experiencing is
a desire to protect the institute/enterprise from cyberattacks -- in
particular, ones like these:

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/cybersecurity/the-5-most-significant-cyberattacks-in-healthcare-for-2020.html

(I can send URLs out -- I just can't see them when they come back in.
Not even my own.)

As near as I can determine, the short term goal that our IT department
is striving to reach is "no end user will ever receive anything through
email that could compromise the network", which means no unfiltered URLs
that could be clicked on, no attachments that can be executed, etc.
Doesn't matter that the end user is reading email in mutt in a Linux
terminal.  Our IT department is all Microsoft people anyway, and I'm
not sure they even understand what a terminal *is*.

They've also totally blocked access to gmail.com and other large email
sites, so users can't receive malware through that vector -- for those
users who are still working on campus, anyway.

In the long term, they're trying to get to a point where *all* Internet
traffic is under their complete control and supervision.

Don't be surprised if I unsubscribe from this list with this email
address in the near future.  I may have to.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231100 — Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam

On Monday 25 January 2021 08:56:04 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 08:29:54AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:17:34PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > Are those modifications added by the Debian mailing list? That'd
> > > be strange, because I don't see them...
> >
> > No.  They're done on the receiving end.  I'm just letting you know
> > that there's some horrible shit out here in the real world.
>
> Definitely =:-o
>
> Sometimes I get the impression that some economic actors hate mail
> because it can't be fenced-off as easily as the "social" silos and
> are doing their best to kill it.
>
> A pity that pgp/gpg hasn't caught on better.

A lack of implementation instructions presented as a sales pitch is to 
blame there. That, and today, finding a copy that doesn't have the NSA 
back door that got Phil out of prison can be a chore.

> Cheers
>  - t


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231110 — Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam

On 2021-01-25 07:56 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> A pity that pgp/gpg hasn't caught on better.

fud - fear uncertainty and doubt
if you use encryption you'll attract the attention of the man

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231111 — Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam

On 2021-01-25 08:56, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> ...
> Sometimes I get the impression that some economic actors hate mail
> because it can't be fenced-off as easily as the "social" silos and
> are doing their best to kill it.
> 
> A pity that pgp/gpg hasn't caught on better.

That comment led me to wonder about what contribution pgp/gpg might make to fighting spam. That led to pgp.mit.edu/faq.html, which has this ...

> Q: I think spammers got my email address from the PGP keyserver. What can I do?
> A: Yes, there have been reports of spammers harvesting addresses from PGP keyservers. Unfortunately, there is not much that either we or you can do about this. Our best suggestion is you take advantage of any spam filtering technology offered by your ISP.

... which of course brings us back to what triggered this thread. Now, I suspect IAC that addresses harvested from a PGP server would be unprofitable for a spammer, but do you have something operational in mind?

Kind regards,
John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231130 — Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:39:14AM -0500, John Kaufmann wrote:
> On 2021-01-25 08:56, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >...
> >Sometimes I get the impression that some economic actors hate mail
> >because it can't be fenced-off as easily as the "social" silos and
> >are doing their best to kill it.
> >
> >A pity that pgp/gpg hasn't caught on better.
> 
> That comment led me to wonder about what contribution pgp/gpg might make to fighting spam. That led to pgp.mit.edu/faq.html, which has this ...

...although I didn't mean to imply that. OTOH, such shenanigans
as Brian reports (the mail provider changing mail's content in
transit -- hamfisted much? What else do they do?) would be cut
short by that.

> >Q: I think spammers got my email address from the PGP keyserver. What can I do?
> >A: Yes, there have been reports of spammers harvesting addresses from PGP keyservers. Unfortunately, there is not much that either we or you can do about this. Our best suggestion is you take advantage of any spam filtering technology offered by your ISP.
> 
> ... which of course brings us back to what triggered this thread. Now, I suspect IAC that addresses harvested from a PGP server would be unprofitable for a spammer, but do you have something operational in mind?

Look, I don't fear spam as much as provider's greed. FWIW, I run my
own mail server and have next to no spam filtering measures (whenever
some source becomes annoying, I quench that one directly) and the
amount of spam I receive is mildly annoying, at most.

IMO the best anti-spam measures are a good MUA and a knowledgeable
user.

Cheers
 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231133 — Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam

On 2021-01-25 14:57, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:39:14AM -0500, John Kaufmann wrote:
>> On 2021-01-25 08:56, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> ...
> Look, I don't fear spam as much as provider's greed. ... IMO the best
> anti-spam measures are a good MUA and a knowledgeable user.

Could not agree more. Thanks,
John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231102 — Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam

On Monday 25 January 2021 08:29:54 Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:17:34PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > Are those modifications added by the Debian mailing list? That'd be
> > strange, because I don't see them...
>
> No.  They're done on the receiving end.  I'm just letting you know
> that there's some horrible shit out here in the real world.

I agree. I get them too, and I think in the last several years I've only 
found one legit email in the whole lot. So I dump the bounce msgs 
to /dev/null by hand.

What we really need is a utility like the little Amazon box that blocks 
phone numbers from a war dialer so nicely. I answer the phone here with 
a finger near the big red button, and I'll say go or hello twice in 3 
secs, if no human is on the line by then, its a war dialer looking for 
its human to sell me something, so the button gets pushed.  Never hear 
from that number again. Something that looks at the messages header and 
auto-composes a procmail recipe to kill it forever.  I'd install that in 
front of kmail in a heartbeat. I've had it about a year, the blocked 
counter is nearly 100.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231093 — Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:03:07AM -0500, John Kaufmann wrote:
> > In the last seven days we've seen bounces for the following list:
> > * debian-user
> > 	1 bounce out of <nn> mails in one day (<x>%, kick-score is 80%)
> 
> First: How common is this occurrence for others?

It is common enough that it belongs in a FAQ.

Some subscribers are using corporate (or even non-corporate) email
systems that have aggressive filtering.  Some legitimate debian-user
email may be caught by these filters and either rejected outright during
SMTP, or delayed pending review.  If it's rejected during SMTP, that'll
certainly trigger the "we've seen bounces" message.

For the record, as of today, the email that I receive at this address
undergoes no fewer than *four* types of modifications before I see it:

1) The Subject: line is altered.
2) A two-line disclaimer is inserted at the top of the body.  (One very
   long line of text, because *obviously* all those Netiquette guides
   are wrong, and one blank line.)
3) All URLs, fully qualified domain names, IP addresses, or any other
   content that looks like one of the above to a dumb regex, get
   replaced by mimecast URLs.
4) All attachments that look like they might contain executable code
   are removed.  This includes shell scripts, perl scripts, etc.

And those are just the modifications that I know about, for the messages
I actually see.  Some messages get held until I click an incredibly
long URL, which means I have to bounce the email to my Outlook account,
so I can see it in a web browser.  Even then, the email system warns
me that it still might choose not to deliver the message that I have
"released", because it will still be subject to further scrutiny first.

And yes, I do see those "we've seen bounces" emails.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231107 — Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam

On 2021-01-25 08:11, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:03:07AM -0500, John Kaufmann wrote:
>>> In the last seven days we've seen bounces for the following list:
>>> * debian-user
>>> 	1 bounce out of <nn> mails in one day (<x>%, kick-score is 80%)
>>
>> First: How common is this occurrence for others?
> 
> It is common enough that it belongs in a FAQ.

Ah, you mean this:
> On 2021-01-23 14:24, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>> There is a comprehensive FAQ on the Debian Wiki which is in need of updating. 
>> https://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

Despite the implicit invitation to all ;-) I'm not qualified to update that FAQ. Who is?

> Some subscribers are using corporate (or even non-corporate) email 
> systems that have aggressive filtering. ... For the record, as of
> today, the email that I receive at this address undergoes no fewer
> than *four* types of modifications before I see it ...
> 
> ... And those are just the modifications that I know about, for the
> messages I actually see.  ...

That's depressing; it suggests that, for all the attention it attracts, the problem is getting worse, not better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231128 — Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Lu, 25 ian 21, 11:11:44, John Kaufmann wrote:
> On 2021-01-25 08:11, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:03:07AM -0500, John Kaufmann wrote:
> > > > In the last seven days we've seen bounces for the following list:
> > > > * debian-user
> > > > 	1 bounce out of <nn> mails in one day (<x>%, kick-score is 80%)
> > > 
> > > First: How common is this occurrence for others?
> > 
> > It is common enough that it belongs in a FAQ.
> 
> Ah, you mean this:
> > On 2021-01-23 14:24, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > > There is a comprehensive FAQ on the Debian Wiki which is in need of
> > > updating. https://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
> 
> Despite the implicit invitation to all ;-) I'm not qualified to update that FAQ. Who is?

Sigh.

The point of a wiki is to be kept up to date by *anyone* who can provide 
a contribution (including spell checking!).

Changes are monitored by other contributors and changes can be reverted 
quite easily (if really necessary).

If despite all this you are still reluctant to touch it please do feel 
free to post proposed changes to the list. If nobody objects within a 
few days proceed with the edits.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231138 — Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam

On 2021-01-25 14:23, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 25 ian 21, 11:11:44, John Kaufmann wrote:
>> On 2021-01-25 08:11, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:03:07AM -0500, John Kaufmann wrote:
>>>>> In the last seven days we've seen bounces for the following list:
>>>>> * debian-user
>>>>> 	1 bounce out of <nn> mails in one day (<x>%, kick-score is 80%)
>>>>
>>>> First: How common is this occurrence for others?
>>>
>>> It is common enough that it belongs in a FAQ.
>>
>> Ah, you mean this:
>>> On 2021-01-23 14:24, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>>>> There is a comprehensive FAQ on the Debian Wiki which is in need of
>>>> updating. https://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
>>
>> Despite the implicit invitation to all ;-) I'm not qualified to update that FAQ. Who is?
> 
> Sigh.  The point of a wiki is to be kept up to date by *anyone* who
> can provide a contribution (including spell checking!).

You are right, of course. I did not mean to suggest a reluctance in principle, but a reluctance in domain expertise. (As mentioned, I don't even know what measures the debian lists use against spam.) Thanks; I will consider.

Kind regards,
John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231164 — Re: debian-user list info and guidelines: spam

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Lu, 25 ian 21, 15:29:11, John Kaufmann wrote:
> On 2021-01-25 14:23, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Lu, 25 ian 21, 11:11:44, John Kaufmann wrote:
> > > On 2021-01-25 08:11, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:03:07AM -0500, John Kaufmann wrote:
> > > > > > In the last seven days we've seen bounces for the following list:
> > > > > > * debian-user
> > > > > > 	1 bounce out of <nn> mails in one day (<x>%, kick-score is 80%)
> > > > > 
> > > > > First: How common is this occurrence for others?
> > > > 
> > > > It is common enough that it belongs in a FAQ.
> > > 
> > > Ah, you mean this:
> > > > On 2021-01-23 14:24, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > > > > There is a comprehensive FAQ on the Debian Wiki which is in need of
> > > > > updating. https://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
> > > 
> > > Despite the implicit invitation to all ;-) I'm not qualified to update that FAQ. Who is?
> > 
> > Sigh.  The point of a wiki is to be kept up to date by *anyone* who
> > can provide a contribution (including spell checking!).
> 
> You are right, of course. I did not mean to suggest a reluctance in 
> principle, but a reluctance in domain expertise. (As mentioned, I 
> don't even know what measures the debian lists use against spam.) 
> Thanks; I will consider.

A link to the Listmaster's FAQ would be a good start ;)

More details on how the filtering is done probably belong there as well, 
and the debian-user FAQ should just link to that. Similar for everything 
that might be applicable for (many) other Debian lists.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231163 — Re: debian-user list information and guidelines : don't use CC mail list

Hi hello

On 24/1/2021 3:24 am, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> The mailing list is a Debian communication forum. As such, it is subject to both the Debian mailing list Code of Conduct and the main Debian Code of Conduct
> 
> https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
> https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
> 
> This is a fairly busy mailing list and you may have to wait for an answer - please be patient. Please post answers back to the list so others can benefit; private
> conversations don't benefit people who may be following along on the list or reading the archives later.
> 
> Help and advice on this list is provided by volunteers in their own time. It is common for there to be different opinions or answers provided. If responding to
> someone, be considerate of their time and effort.

I would like ask opinion on a little proposal to add new rule regrading 
using CC with mail list address.

The reason is, why the sender need to use "TO" to original sender / 
reply-er and CC the mail list, since the original sender / reply-er also 
subscriber to the same mailing list.

In another case, maybe someone not subscriber but try to help or ask for 
help directly but Debian additional CoC said "Do not quote messages that 
were sent to you by other people in private mail, unless agreed beforehand"

I prepared ASCII table for comparison matrix here[1] have a look, I 
could paste the table here since it may look broken on your email client.

What I wish is to add one more additional code of conduct which 
something like "Do not send or reply email with CC mailing list, instead 
please use TO mailing address to send message if the person you want to 
communicate is coming from mail list" (need better sentences)

Let me know what do you think about it.

[1] 
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/RobbiNespu/ed58a5cf28560e47a8a6a3f717bdccca/raw/47a06adc566e00c9055b3c8a7b40ab70e5494f39/gistfile1.txt

-- 
Email: Robbi Nespu <robbinespu AT SPAMFREE gmail DOT com>
PGP fingerprint : D311 B5FF EEE6 0BE8 9C91 FA9E 0C81 FA30 3B3A 80BA
PGP key : https://keybase.io/robbinespu/pgp_keys.asc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231177 — Re: debian-user list information and guidelines : don't use CC mail list

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:37:59AM +0800, Robbi Nespu wrote:
> Hi hello

[...]

> I would like ask opinion on a little proposal to add new rule
> regrading using CC with mail list address.
> 
> The reason is, why the sender need to use "TO" to original sender /
> reply-er and CC the mail list, since the original sender / reply-er
> also subscriber to the same mailing list.

Sometimes (s)he is, sometimes not. You don't need a subscription
to post here. This is a conscious decision, to lower the entry
threshold (I haven't contributed to that decision myself, but I
do support it wholly).

> In another case, maybe someone not subscriber but try to help or ask
> for help directly but Debian additional CoC said "Do not quote
> messages that were sent to you by other people in private mail,
> unless agreed beforehand"

This is irrelevant. The above, when someone not subscribed posts a
question, that's what counts here.

> I prepared ASCII table for comparison matrix here[1] have a look, I
> could paste the table here since it may look broken on your email
> client.

Sorry. I'm not clicking on a github link until there is a strong
reason to do so.

> What I wish is to add one more additional code of conduct which
> something like "Do not send or reply email with CC mailing list,
> instead please use TO mailing address to send message if the person
> you want to communicate is coming from mail list" (need better
> sentences)

This discussion comes up here from time to time. It hasn't reached
a clear consensus yet: it's far more complex that it seems, because it
involves mail user agents and the interpretation of not-quite-standard
mail headers.

Do some research on the mailing list archives, and you'll see what
I mean :-)

> Let me know what do you think about it.

To be honest, I'm a bit rubbed the wrong way when you request a
discussion (good!) and come with the result of the discussion ("to
add one more additional code of conduct...").

There will be other positions here, and I expect of everyone to
at least understand the others people's points.

Cheers
 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231179 — Re: debian-user list information and guidelines : don't use CC mail list

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Ma, 26 ian 21, 11:37:59, Robbi Nespu wrote:
> Hi hello
> 
> On 24/1/2021 3:24 am, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > The mailing list is a Debian communication forum. As such, it is subject to both the Debian mailing list Code of Conduct and the main Debian Code of Conduct
> > 
> > https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
> > https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
> > 
> > This is a fairly busy mailing list and you may have to wait for an answer - please be patient. Please post answers back to the list so others can benefit; private
> > conversations don't benefit people who may be following along on the list or reading the archives later.
> > 
> > Help and advice on this list is provided by volunteers in their own time. It is common for there to be different opinions or answers provided. If responding to
> > someone, be considerate of their time and effort.
> 
> I would like ask opinion on a little proposal to add new rule regrading
> using CC with mail list address.
> 
> The reason is, why the sender need to use "TO" to original sender / reply-er
> and CC the mail list, since the original sender / reply-er also subscriber
> to the same mailing list.
> 
> In another case, maybe someone not subscriber but try to help or ask for
> help directly but Debian additional CoC said "Do not quote messages that
> were sent to you by other people in private mail, unless agreed beforehand"
> 
> I prepared ASCII table for comparison matrix here[1] have a look, I could
> paste the table here since it may look broken on your email client.
> 
> What I wish is to add one more additional code of conduct which something
> like "Do not send or reply email with CC mailing list, instead please use TO
> mailing address to send message if the person you want to communicate is
> coming from mail list" (need better sentences)
> 
> Let me know what do you think about it.
> 
> [1] https://gist.githubusercontent.com/RobbiNespu/ed58a5cf28560e47a8a6a3f717bdccca/raw/47a06adc566e00c9055b3c8a7b40ab70e5494f39/gistfile1.txt
 
In my understanding of the above and your table the Mailing List CoC 
already covers all your cases, so I must be misunderstanding something.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web