From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 23 20:27:21 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 268E31065671 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:27:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from igloo.linux.gr (igloo.linux.gr [62.1.205.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C2F8FC14 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:27:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from kobe.laptop (adsl22-218.kln.forthnet.gr [77.49.149.218]) (authenticated bits=128) by igloo.linux.gr (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m2NKQrGR028810 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:27:00 +0200 Received: from kobe.laptop (kobe.laptop [127.0.0.1]) by kobe.laptop (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m2NKQrTa002587 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:26:53 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from keramida@localhost) by kobe.laptop (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m2NKQqsP002586; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:26:52 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) From: Giorgos Keramidas To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <1206146157.6973.21.camel@laptop2.herveybayaustralia.com.au> <9CA3D4489328B8E911387EE0@Macintosh.local> <1206160383.6973.42.camel@laptop2.herveybayaustralia.com.au> <200803220724.05759.jonathan+freebsd-questions@hst.org.za> <47E58E08.2040907@next.online.no> <20080322233254.GA5940@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <47E6208F.4020104@next.online.no> <87lk49e8oq.fsf@kobe.laptop> <47E6B552.5090003@next.online.no> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:26:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: <47E6B552.5090003@next.online.no> (Tore Lund's message of "Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:53:54 +0100") Message-ID: <87fxuhkwz8.fsf@kobe.laptop> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-MailScanner-ID: m2NKQrGR028810 X-Hellug-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Hellug-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-3.886, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, AWL 0.51, BAYES_00 -2.60) X-Hellug-MailScanner-From: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr X-Spam-Status: No Subject: Re: List replies X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:27:21 -0000 On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:53:54 +0100, Tore Lund wrote: > Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >> [snip] >> We don't accept email only from lurkers. The mailing list is also >> advertized as the official place to ask questions in CD-ROMs provided by >> vendors, in our documentation, on magazines, conferences, and so on. > > The normal thing on all other forums that I have heard of - and that > includes Usenet - is that you have to go back to the forum to pick up > answers to your question. The `normal' thing is defined only on a per-forum basis, however. What other forums do is not `The Law', and the opposite of what you are trying to defend has been wide-spread practice in all the mailing lists of FreeBSD and in many other free and open source projects I am contributing to for more than 15 years or so. I would be surprised if that were the case, but I think we must have been using different alter egos of the Internet until we met here ;-) > The mechanism that you defend represents a break with established > practice for most computer users. I'm not sure replying only to the list is `established practice for most computer users'. So I can't agree that this is a valid argument for switching what we have been doing in freebsd-questions for the past 10 years or so that I'm subscribed. > I have heard all the arguments many times over, and I don't buy them. > I think it would be better to direct newbies to > comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc, which at least has a predictable > interface. (For instance, you don't risk missing the rest of a > discussion because someone decides to prune the headers.) The header trimming and its dangers seem to be an argument exactly for the _opposite_ of what you are suggesting. By posting a reply only to the list the user runs the risk of missing even the _first_ reply ever! I'm sorry, but it's me who doesn't feel inclined to buy into any of the arguments presented so far. - Giorgos