Re: [arch-d] Mail Etiquette

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 10 April 2020 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08F93A0A20 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.383
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q3mvEooXLl7W for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15CFE3A09D8 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jMxH1-000GOm-Ig; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 13:16:59 -0400
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 13:16:53 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Vincent Truchseß <ietf-arch@v-tr.org>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <E0937C078B7EE9C511ACE650@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <688f5250-c8f6-765b-a51a-b931b76e6d65@v-tr.org>
References: <98d43782-6543-b473-6a3c-dc6fe0e4de7d@v-tr.org> <869472A7-EF3E-4CC2-8ACE-0196E8B10504@puck.nether.net> <688f5250-c8f6-765b-a51a-b931b76e6d65@v-tr.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/PH_s35ldji8LmBXkO37NCaT5usY>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Mail Etiquette
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:17:07 -0000


--On Friday, April 10, 2020 16:57 +0200 Vincent Truchseß
<ietf-arch@v-tr.org> wrote:

> Automated sorting becomes a pain if the list's address is
> sometimes in To, sometimes in Cc and whatnot. Also, those
> duplicates like to appear in different folders making it
> difficult to track threats.

Vincent, these are really local problems of how things are
filtered and organized, not ones that are easy to solve, or even
make recommendations about, globally.  FWIW, even if you don't
copy the sender, similar problems occur when, for good reason,
something is cross-posted to multiple lists.

> Anything against simply replying to the list instead?
> It makes subscribing to a list without manually editing
> sieve-filters much more pleasurable.

I think the first of these has already been mentioned:

(1) The IETF allows IETF participants who are not subscribers to
post to a particular list.  This, and copying more than one
list, are particularly important during IETF Last Calls or WG
tentative decisions are announced on the IETF list in the hope
of getting cross-area review.  In some of those cases, the
author or a response may not actual be on the relevant list.  If
you respond to such a comment/response, the author of that
response, unless copied explicitly, may never see what you had
to say.

(2) When we get very busy, some (certainly not all) of us may
prioritize reading messages addressed to us (in either "To:" or
"Cc:" header fields) over messages addressed only to one or more
mailing lists.  So, again, if you want your comments on a
message to be seen as soon as possible by the author of the one
to which you are responding, it may be in your interest to go
ahead and explicitly include that author among the addressees.

That said, the reality is that different of us follow different
conventions, sometimes not even being consistent about that on a
given day.  You will see the same thing with decisions as to
whether to write responses inline with a copy of the original
message or to make one's comments at the top.   There is no
fixed rule and people seem to do what they thing best and
everyone just learns to cope. 

welcome to the IETF.
   john