Thread hijacking

[Christopher Chan]

Amedee Van Gasse (ub) wrote:
> On Tue, December 15, 2009 15:46, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>>> Thread hijacking is frowned upon, and so is publicly commenting on
>>> thread
>>> hijacking.
>>>
>>> The same can be said about the following activities:
>>>
>>>
>> --snip--
>>> * direct replies (not to list)
>>>
>>>
>>> They are all violations against the letter or the spirit of the mailing
>>> list etiquette, but the users that do those things are usually new users
>>> that aren't even aware that there is such a thing as an etiquette.
>> Where, may I ask, does it say that private/direct replies are violations
>> of the letter or spirit of mailing list etiquette?
> 
> Unwanted direct replies when they were clearly intended to go to the list.

Tough if you are on a mailing list with a standard complying 
configuration and other members do not have muas with a proper 
reply-to-list mechanism.

> 
>> It is a violation of mailing list etiquette to post other's
>> private/direct replies to you to the mailing list but private/direct
>> replies in themselves are rarely violations of any mailing list etiquette.
> 
> That's a totally different matter. You're talking about intentional
> private replies, I'm talking about UNintentional private replies OR
> private replies with the list in CC.
> 

Unintentional private replies and private replies with the list in the 
CC are too different things. The first is hardly a violation of 
anything, it was a mistake. The second one however is probably the sort 
of stuff before a flame war gets started.