Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/03/06/06:22:25
On 6 Mar 1997, George Foot wrote:
> Paul Shirley (Paul AT foobar DOT co DOT uk DOT chocolat) wrote:
>
> : Back in the real world: I suppose its worth discussing what an
> : appropriate response to the FAQs that annoy Eli so much should be.
> : Converting them to an email response *most* of the time sounds
> : reasonable to me.
>
> I don't remember ever seeing Eli annoyed :)
That's because I'm really not annoyed (well, not usually, anyway).
> IMHO a suitable response to a FAQ is a pointer to the relevant section
> of the FAQ, possibly with a brief explanation.
As far as I am concerned, the FAQ pointers also serve one other
important function: they are effectively posting the FAQ (in parts) to
the news group. That is why I almost always post to the news group as
well as email the involved people directly. Unlike other news group,
c.o.m.d. doesn't post the FAQ periodically, because the FAQ is too
large for that. (OK, I know I need to make a shorter version of
*really* frequently-asked FAQs.) Posting the replies to the FAQs lets
people read its sections in parts, and thus they might occasionally
learn something new.
> If people see such a
> post as a response to a question, there is no point in duplicating it
> (unless there is a mistake in it).
I suggest everybody to read their inbox or a certain thread entirely
before they begin to reply (that's what I do).
> and on the mailing list messages aren't threaded, making it difficult
> to see whether such a response has already been given.
That is entirely up to your mailer. Most mailers have an option to
sort the messages for you so that you actually see the threads. (If
your mailer doesn't, toss it and get a better one.)
- Raw text -