Mail-Followup-To: amanda-users AT amanda DOT org

* Jon LaBadie <jon AT jgcomp DOT com> [2004-05-02 12:44]:
> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 12:44:16PM -0600, Justin Gombos wrote:
> > 
> > > IMHO this was rather rude way to bring up the issue, 
> > 
> > First of all, I did not know whether this was an issue, that's why I
> > posted here.  It was certainly proper to raise an Amanda
> > issue/question to the amanda-users mailing list.
> 
> The rude part was not your posting a question about the design of
> amanda to this list.  The rudeness came when you described an aspect
> of amanda as "incredibly stupid" in your first posting to a list
> that contains among it membership several people who have
> contributed to amanda's development.  Few people like to hear their
> work described as stupid.  

It seemed like an incredibly stupid limitation to me.  That is my
opinion.  Opinions are often welcome on mailing lists, even if they
are offensive.  It was not an ad hominem, or a flame.  It was a remark
about the functionality of a tool, and should be accepted.  If you
disagree, you are welcome to state your opinion that it would be
stupid for Amanda to support such functionality.

> Particularly by someone who doesn't know what they are talking
> about.

Exactly.  For me to state that a certain functionality or lack thereof
is "stupid," it's not just a statement about the subject, but it's
also (intentionally) a statement about the author.  This way, you know
where I'm coming from, and what kind of user you're dealing with.
Specifically, you're dealing with a user who is accustomed to tools
that can put multiple volumes on a single media, and has never
encountered this type of limitation.

> > OTOH-- if you want to talk about etiquette, you should try not to
> > ignore the mail-followup-to header on mailing list posts.
> 
> I just looked back at your original post.  I see no header directing
> followups anywhere.  Jonathan knows that many posters, particularly
> new posters, do not subscribe to the list.  It is not a requirement
> for posting.  Thus as a courtesy to you he sent a copy to you as well
> as to the list.

I just verified that I sent a Mail-Followup-To header.  It seems the
mailing list software is stripping out the Mail-Followup-To headers.
So you are correct, Jonathan did not fail to honor the header, but
rather the list software.  

I'll have to come up with alternatives.  Maybe a mutt hook that will
automatically append a signature with the Mail-Followup-To
preferences.  As a test, I'm adding a Mail-Followup-To line to the
body and a X-Mail-Followup-To header to see if the list strips that
too.