Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 08 Apr 2011 18:42:16 +0100
From:      Arthur Chance <>
To:        FreeBSD <>
Subject:   Mailing list etiquette (Was: Re: Linksys-E4200 Wireless N-router)
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP4AE64F3A96B5D9419A73793A70@phx.gbl>
References:  <BLU0-SMTP822D4E4CF029F1BA9770C993A40@phx.gbl>	<>	<BLU0-SMTP20121C52B6CB6F4D37FE7ED93A40@phx.gbl>	<> <BLU0-SMTP4AE64F3A96B5D9419A73793A70@phx.gbl>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On 04/08/11 16:21, Carmel wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 12:51:41 +0100
> Arthur Chance<>  articulated:
>> On 04/07/11 15:32, Carmel wrote:
>>> Odhiambo, please don't CC me. I don't need multiple copies of the
>>> same post.
>> CCing the original poster is standard etiquette on FreeBSD mailing
>> lists. Most lists are open to anybody to mail to without being signed
>> up, so when replying there's no way of knowing whether or not the
>> questioner will see a reply that only goes to the list. This is
>> especially true of freebsd-questions.
> 1) I have posted several times on this list and only received CC's on
> two of them that I can recall. Obviously your standard is not so
> standard.

Well, it's not an ISO or IETF standard, that I'll admit. However, if you 
take a look at the article on getting the best out of -questions

(which is one click away from the Mailing List Etiquette section of the 
Mailing List FAQ)

section 8.6 starts:

---- start quote ----
Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, reply to the sender and 
to FreeBSD-questions.
---- end quote ----

> 2) I placed a very clear notice at the bottom of my post(s). Many
> people would consider that a clue as to my desire to receive multiple
> copies of the same document.

My MUA (Thunderbird) greys out signature blocks, some other mailers also 
de-emphasise them. This and the fact that most sig blocks are just chaff 
means they tend not to get read. That's unfortunate on the odd occasions 
they have significant content.

> 3) Perhaps it is only me; however, most of the major lists that I
> employ all require a registration by the poster prior to being allowed
> to post.

Many lists do, the FBSD lists tend not to. From the FAQ, note the final 

---- start quote ----
1.3. Are the FreeBSD mailing lists open for anyone to participate?

Again, this depends on charter of each individual list. Please read the 
charter of a mailing list before you post to it, and respect it when you 
post. This will help everyone to have a better experience with the lists.

If after reading the above lists, you still do not know which mailing 
list to post a question to, you will probably want to post to 
freebsd-questions (but see below, first).

Also note that the mailing lists have traditionally been open to 
postings from non-subscribers. This has been a deliberate choice, to 
help make joining the FreeBSD community an easier process, and to 
encourage open sharing of ideas. However, due to past abuse by some 
individuals, certain lists now have a policy where postings from 
non-subscribers must be manually screened to ensure that they are 
---- end quote ----

> 4) I have seen several posts where the OP requested to be CC'd because
> they were not registered members of the list. Obviously, they were
> aware of the necessity of being CC'd or reading the archives in order
> to review any posts to their request. Now, is someone is just so plain
> stupid that they are not aware of that simple fact, then they are too
> stupid to be posting to begin with.

Are they stupid? No. Are they unfamiliar with the way things are done 
round here? Quite possibly. I think you'll find that many of the people 
who do that are first time users or possible future users, often coming 
from a Linux background and/or used to closed lists. With luck, as 
people start using FBSD seriously they'll also take some time to read 
the FAQs.

[For lurkers reading this, if you haven't read the Mailing List FAQ 
you'll find it at


> 5) If you noticed, I asked Odhiambo very nicely not to include me in a
> CC. I am sure he meant well; however, the inevitable destruction of
> electrons in the transmission of the superfluous document could have
> been avoided.

If you interpreted my remark as criticising your politeness, I 
apologise. That was not the intention.

Oh, and speaking as an ex-physicist, if electrons are being destroyed in 
transmission I'd *seriously* worry about your ISP. Either they've got a 
source of positrons or they've got radioactives that undergo electron 
capture. Either way I wouldn't want to be anywhere near their kit. Gamma 
rays are not good for you. :-)

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>