On 5 December 2013 11:58, Steve Engledow steve.engledow@proxama.com wrote:
On 05/12/13 11:48, steve-ALUG@hst.me.uk wrote:
Are people still happy with these rules/etiquette? (I am).
/me votes yes
As a co-conspirator in the email thread that caused this, another "me too" here.
Aside: when any "good" email client receives two copies of the same email via different routes (in this case via the list and via direct CC) it will generally combine them so you only see one copy. On receipt of the useful PDF I only commented to this list after checking it was indeed sent to the list[*], but there's no easy way to see that, although it was sent to me via two routes, it was only received via one of them (and that it wasn't the list). So whilst I agree that if someone (deliberately or by mistake) emails me off-list I'd have no right to reply to it on-list, if (as was the case here) the sender clearly intended it to be public by posting it to the list (albeit that it never got there) then an on-list reply is appropriate.
[*] To say I checked is over-stating it: I did a reply-to-all and shuffled the recipients around to make ALUG the To: and removed the other recipient, as I would normally do. Had it not been sent to ALUG this process would have flagged it up as an off-list reply.
It did seem odd that the PDF had come through via the list - given I frequently get hit by the HTML issue (using Gmail as a mail client - I didn't actually say I used a decent mail client did I?), but I didn't think much more of it.