Dear T Ziomek,
In message 20090601203258.GG8553@email.mot.com you wrote:
Yes, but how one's MUA / mail client handles them may *not* be identi- cal.
Quite a few people configure their MUA to prioritize messages based on whether they are on the To: list, CC:, BCC:, or none of the above (i.e. by list membership).
I read this as a pro for long cc: lists.
What is the difference whether you receive one or two identical copies of a message?
It's a hassle and distraction to deal with duplicates.
This however is a clear con, isn't it?
How about reconfiguring the list software instead?
I see no reason for that yet.
+1 for not restricting the # of addressees absent a reason other than "some of them are often redundant".
We neever before had any such problems. Currently these are caused because some messages have 5 (or more) samsung.com addresses listed on Cc:; for example, "[PATCH] The omap3 L2 cache enable/disable function to omap3 dependent code" has 6 such addresses on Cc:
I doubt that this is really necessary. In this specific case, a company-internal distribution list would probably be more appropriate.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk