🚀 go-pugleaf

[Note the cross-posting - I've not specified a follow up, but leave to 
future posters to decide which group or groups are more relevant]

In message <n6d1ouognhttm6ip36rrvvbvl2o8u9mjrt@4ax.com>, K <me@work.uk> 
writes
>On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:51:05 +0100, David Wood <david@wood2.org.uk>
>wrote:
 >>[attribution line lost here - not my fault!]
>>>Can any replies be CC'd to me if possible, as my usenet access isn't
>>>brilliant.
>>
>>I can't easily - sorry. Turnpike, for good reasons, doesn't support
>>"post and mail".
>
>What are the "good reasons"?

"Post and mail" is regarded as a bad idea. In some newsgroups, I found I 
got bombarded with people who posted *and* mailed a reply when it wasn't 
asked for and I simply got fed up of reading replies to my messages 
twice.

If it's there, people use it, usually inappropriately. If newsgroups are 
genuinely about having a discussion, it's bad netiquette to ask for 
answers to be emailed - though if that really is the most appropriate 
way Followup-To: poster will handle that.


Turnpike allows you to switch freely between posting a follow up and 
emailing a reply, even when you're writing. That is one of the 
requirements of the Good Net-Keeping Seal of Approval - see 
<http://www.gnksa.org> and note that Turnpike Six has the seal of 
approval.

Deliberately (to prevent unwanted 'post and mail'), Turnpike makes post 
and mail a little tricky - you follow-up, then redraft the follow-up 
once sent and send it as an emailed reply.



I really can't be bothered to argue over this - but those who have 
wished for "post and mail" in the Turnpike newsgroup have usually been 
convinced that it's a good idea to leave it out.





David
-- 
David Wood
david@wood2.org.uk