Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> writes:

On 04/09/2026 10:27 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

[...]

[...]

Keep in mind that this thread is cross-posted to three different
groups.

It's the cross-posting idiots that start this; I've removed
the unnecessary groups (including comp.windows.x) from this reply.

Now now, Scott; there's on reason to be rude. The original poster explicitly wanted followups in comp.windows.x, and you dared to over-
rule that?

What kind of moron does something like that? Can't you just be polite
and follow the wishes of the original poster? Do you /need/ to have
this conversation in comp.lang.c where it's not wanted anyway?

I would like to express a different point of view on this question.

I'm not really a fan of cross-posting, but as long as Scott thought
his message was relevant to all the groups he posted to (I don't
have Scott's message handy), it's perfectly appropriate for him to
include those groups in his followup.

In most cases I see using Followup-To: as a kind of hit-and-run
tactic. The Newsgroups: line should include, at most, only groups
that are relevant to the content of a message. Someone responding
to a message is in a better position to know which group, or groups,
are best suited to what they have to say in their followup. It's
presumptuous to assume, as a poster, that you know better than
whoever is choosing to reply where any responses should go.

I routinely ignore Followup-To: for the simple reason that I have a
policy of not posting to newsgroups that I don't read. If my reply
is relevant to comp.lang.c (or wherever I am reading it), that's
what I choose for where to send it. I don't read comp.windows.x;
in my opinion it would be rude for me to post there. If what I have
to say isn't relevant to comp.lang.c, or whichever group is being
read when I see the message, then generally it seems better just not
to post anything.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)