Re: Abusing CC:
In a message dated: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:31:39 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 12:10pm, Tom Buskey wrote: >> Ummm, yahoo does lists for free & provides a web archive, etc. Granted, >> there'd be less control & ads inserted. Well, maybe there'd be more >> control. > > I, personally, would consider that a step in the wrong direction. :) > > When I say we are working on improving things, I mean we have been >gradually moving things over to other servers that other people have >generously let us have room on. Mailing lists are included in that. We >even have a long-standing and perpetually-far-off plan to get our own >server. But I didn't want to get into details because nothing is finalized >yet. People interested in the details can subscribe to the >list and learn more then you ever wanted to know. :) > > Can this thread *please* die now? :) No, we have a policy in GNHLUG that all horses beaten to death must continue to be beaten until they are actually revived and running under their own power again ;) -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 12:10pm, Tom Buskey wrote: > Ummm, yahoo does lists for free & provides a web archive, etc. Granted, > there'd be less control & ads inserted. Well, maybe there'd be more > control. I, personally, would consider that a step in the wrong direction. :) When I say we are working on improving things, I mean we have been gradually moving things over to other servers that other people have generously let us have room on. Mailing lists are included in that. We even have a long-standing and perpetually-far-off plan to get our own server. But I didn't want to get into details because nothing is finalized yet. People interested in the details can subscribe to the list and learn more then you ever wanted to know. :) Can this thread *please* die now? :) -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 11:26am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Btw, ahm, with all this discussion about headers like M-F-T, why aren't we >> using the already standard List-* headers? I would solve a lot of the >> complaints here! > > Because the configuration of the current mailing list is limited by the >policies of the environment which hosts it, and we have to live with said >limitations. DEC^WCompaq^WHewlett-Packard has been very generous over the >years in hosting this list for us, for free, with outstanding reliability. >It largely comes down to "beggars can't be choosers". We are working on >improving things, as you should know, Paul! :) > Ummm, yahoo does lists for free & provides a web archive, etc. Granted, there'd be less control & ads inserted. Well, maybe there'd be more control. I'm not trying to put down DEC^WCompaq^WHewlett-Packard, they've been very generous and do a great job. I'm just saying there's at least one alternative. -- --- Tom Buskey * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 11:26:42AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:17:23 EDT > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > >On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, at 4:32pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Can someone explain exactly what M-F-T is *supposed* to do. > > > > *sigh* Did this forum become write-only when I wasn't looking? :) > > Hey, if we actually *READ* stuff you posted, people would expect us > to *know* what you were talking about ;) > > Btw, ahm, with all this discussion about headers like M-F-T, why > aren't we using the already standard List-* headers? I would solve a > lot of the complaints here! > > Is is because we're (for now) using Majordomo? I know Mailman uses > these headers, since every mailman admin'ed list I'm on has them set > (and I regularly take advantage of them). I don't know about > Majordomo. Using the 'L'ist reply feature of Mutt, Mr. List Maintainer said: In part, yes. Majordomo does not natively implement any of the List-* headers, so it's up to the maintainer (me) to add them. Now that it has been brought to my attention, I have added the List-Id and List-Post header tags. Sadly, the (un)subscribe and help tags won't work with majordomo, so I had to leave them out. Mark > -- > > Seeya, > Paul > > It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, >but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. > >If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! > > > > * > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. > * > -- Mark Gelinas Hewlett Packard Company EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 110 Spit Brook Road, ZKO3-2/W17 Phone: +1 (603) 884-1511 Nashua, NH 03062-2698 USA Views expressed are my own, and not necessarily those of my employer. * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 11:52am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm not questioning that. I know full well that there are politcal > reasons for the way things are. Oh. Sorry. :-/ > I'm asking if List-* headers are even a possibility in Majordomo, which we > happen to be using because of what you just stated. They are possible. Majordomo can add arbitrary headers to messages sent on a mailing list, and newer releases support the List-* headers automatically. I know the release in use at ZK3 is older, and possibly even forked by DEC/Compaq/HP for use in OSF1/Digital UNIX/Tru64 UNIX/HP-UX. > Because we like to hear you repeat yourself every few months. Somehow I actually doubt that. :) -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
In a message dated: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:48:08 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 11:26am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Btw, ahm, with all this discussion about headers like M-F-T, why aren't we >> using the already standard List-* headers? I would solve a lot of the >> complaints here! > > Because the configuration of the current mailing list is limited by the >policies of the environment which hosts it, and we have to live with said >limitations. DEC^WCompaq^WHewlett-Packard has been very generous over the >years in hosting this list for us, for free, with outstanding reliability. I'm not questioning that. I know full well that there are politcal reasons for the way things are. I'm asking if List-* headers are even a possibility in Majordomo, which we happen to be using because of what you just stated. >It largely comes down to "beggars can't be choosers". We are working on >improving things, as you should know, Paul! :) I do know, and not questioning that. > Why does this topic get revisited every month, by people who should know > the answer by now? :) Because we like to hear you repeat yourself every few months. Why is it that you, of all people consistently forget that the name of the group is the "Greater New Hampshire Heckle Ben Group" ;) -- Seeya, Paul It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 11:26am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Btw, ahm, with all this discussion about headers like M-F-T, why aren't we > using the already standard List-* headers? I would solve a lot of the > complaints here! Because the configuration of the current mailing list is limited by the policies of the environment which hosts it, and we have to live with said limitations. DEC^WCompaq^WHewlett-Packard has been very generous over the years in hosting this list for us, for free, with outstanding reliability. It largely comes down to "beggars can't be choosers". We are working on improving things, as you should know, Paul! :) Why does this topic get revisited every month, by people who should know the answer by now? :) -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
In a message dated: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:17:23 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, at 4:32pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Can someone explain exactly what M-F-T is *supposed* to do. > > *sigh* Did this forum become write-only when I wasn't looking? :) Hey, if we actually *READ* stuff you posted, people would expect us to *know* what you were talking about ;) Btw, ahm, with all this discussion about headers like M-F-T, why aren't we using the already standard List-* headers? I would solve a lot of the complaints here! Is is because we're (for now) using Majordomo? I know Mailman uses these headers, since every mailman admin'ed list I'm on has them set (and I regularly take advantage of them). I don't know about Majordomo. -- Seeya, Paul It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, at 4:32pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Can someone explain exactly what M-F-T is *supposed* to do. *sigh* Did this forum become write-only when I wasn't looking? :) http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html In a public forum like this one, there are at least two types of "reply" one might want to make. One is a broadcast reply to the group (often called a "followup"). The other is a private reply to the author. Unfortunately, the only available standard header is "Reply-To", so the distinction cannot be made. Hence, the addition of two new headers: Mail-Followup-To and Mail-Reply-To. M-F-T designates the address to use when making a broadcast reply to the group. M-R-T designates the address to use when making a private reply to the author. Additionally, the M-R-T header overrides the standard Reply-To header. The idea is that the list address will be given for Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To, and the author's personal address be given for Mail-Reply-To. For example: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Legacy software which does not support M-F-T or M-R-T will see the "Reply-To" header, and reply to the group (which is the nominal point of a discussion forum in the first place). New software will see the newer headers, and offer "Reply to group" and "Reply to author" functions, and also know to ignore the "Reply-To" header. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Erik Price wrote: > On Thursday, July 11, 2002, at 09:10 PM, Thomas M. Albright wrote: > > > You know, with all the stuff you guys are talking about, this remains > > the only list I'm on where I have to reply-to-all if I want my reply to > > go to the list. Every other list sets the replies to go to the list > > unless you specify otherwise. Why is that? Why do I need to reconfigure > > my client to be able to reply to the list? > > Here we go again! > again, nothing. I'm just doing my part to keep the "discussion" alive. :) -- TARogue (Linux user number 234357) You can always tell a Texan, but you can't tell him much. - Chris Wall * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, at 9:46pm, Rich Payne wrote: > The other side of it was that those of who didn't agree with the change > reserved the right to complain about it for the rest of eternity. "I've said this before, but repetition is the very soul of the 'net." -- from alt.config -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
If you take a look through the archives, about a year ago (might be longer now I suppose) several people on the list felt that it should be changed. There was a 'vote' held and it was decided to change to the behavior we have now. The other side of it was that those of who didn't agree with the change reserved the right to complain about it for the rest of eternity. --rdp P.S. The above change is also the reason you'll get two copies of this message. On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Thomas M. Albright wrote: > You know, with all the stuff you guys are talking about, this remains > the only list I'm on where I have to reply-to-all if I want my reply to > go to the list. Every other list sets the replies to go to the list > unless you specify otherwise. Why is that? Why do I need to reconfigure > my client to be able to reply to the list? > > -- Rich Payne http://talisman.mv.com * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
Hmmm The header-munging Vs. Non-header-munging debate. Is it Thursday already? ;-) On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 21:10, Thomas M. Albright wrote: > You know, with all the stuff you guys are talking about, this remains > the only list I'm on where I have to reply-to-all if I want my reply to > go to the list. Every other list sets the replies to go to the list > unless you specify otherwise. Why is that? Why do I need to reconfigure > my client to be able to reply to the list? > > -- > TARogue (Linux user number 234357) > Young men want to be faithful and are not; old men want to be faithless > and cannot. -- Oscar Wilde > > > * > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. > * -- "The ebb and flow of the Atlantic tides. The drift of the continents. The very position of the sun along it's ecliptic. These are just a few of the things I control in my world." * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
On Thursday, July 11, 2002, at 09:10 PM, Thomas M. Albright wrote: > You know, with all the stuff you guys are talking about, this remains > the only list I'm on where I have to reply-to-all if I want my reply to > go to the list. Every other list sets the replies to go to the list > unless you specify otherwise. Why is that? Why do I need to reconfigure > my client to be able to reply to the list? Here we go again! Erik * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
You know, with all the stuff you guys are talking about, this remains the only list I'm on where I have to reply-to-all if I want my reply to go to the list. Every other list sets the replies to go to the list unless you specify otherwise. Why is that? Why do I need to reconfigure my client to be able to reply to the list? -- TARogue (Linux user number 234357) Young men want to be faithful and are not; old men want to be faithless and cannot. -- Oscar Wilde * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
In a message dated: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:54:27 EDT Jerry Feldman said: >I use exmh at home, and I have set up templates for the lists I use. Thus when > replying to a listserv, the template preserves the Subject but not the >addresses so I get a nice clean header. So are you doing something like: repl -nocc me -nocc cc -cc to Or something equivalent? -- Seeya, Paul * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 04:54:27PM -0400, Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I use exmh at home, and I have set up templates for the lists I use. > Thus when replying to a listserv, the template preserves the Subject > but not the addresses so I get a nice clean header. Which, incidently, removes the In-Reply-To and References headers, which hinder threading of messages. (Also, your email lines don't wrap, but that's a separate issue) -- Bob BellHewlett-Packard Company Software Engineer 110 Spit Brook Rd - ZKO3-3/U14 TruCluster GroupNashua, NH 03062-2698 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 603-884-0595 * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I use exmh at home, and I have set up templates for the lists I use. Thus when replying to a listserv, the template preserves the Subject but not the addresses so I get a nice clean header. - -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 12/25/2001 iD8DBQE9LfCC+wA+1cUGHqkRAvdfAJ90Uq+sz2JUVDMAfCLmeVvzO3lQcgCfXPIz jvs12SBGP6lHCvknJotbqIk= =zSeu -END PGP SIGNATURE- * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
In a message dated: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:57:00 EDT mike ledoux said: >M-F-T would be really nice, except that Mutt is the only MUA that uses it. >Last I checked, the RFC it was proposed in had expired. Can someone explain exactly what M-F-T is *supposed* to do. I'm not as familiar with that header as I am with things like X-Reply-by and X-message-flag :) How is a mail client supposed to react to the M-F-T header? Thanks, -- Seeya, Paul It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, at 1:56pm, Bob Bell wrote: > IMHO, "Mail-Followup-To" is a cleaner solution. Oh, I agree that a header specifically for this reason is a much better solution. However, until such time as Mail-Followup-To becomes an effective solution, I plan on including a "Reply-To" header as well. Hmmm... wait a second... doesn't... [quick web search]... yah. http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html Mail-Followup-To is designed to be used in conjunction with Mail-Reply-To. As DJB says, "RFC 822 did not recognize reply-to-author and follow-up as separate features." These two new headers do. Thus, one should include all three. Reply-To is set to the list address, Mail-Followup-To is set to the list address, and Mail-Reply-To is set to the author address. Legacy software which does not recognize the newer headers sends to the list by default, as is normal; newer software sees the Mail-Reply-To header and knows that it overrides Reply-To. Personally, I would have called the headers "Reply-To-All" and "Reply-To-Author", just to make that distinction completely bloody obvious, but since I didn't write the spec, I don't have a say. :) -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 12:40:17AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Any message sent to the list address is not a private reply. > > I suspect you really mean that people who blindly hit "Reply" will send to > the wrong address. You're right, they will. But that's not the fault of > the mail headers, it's pilot error. I've said this before and I'll say it > again: Check your headers before sending, or you will do the Wrong Thing > sooner or later. Not only that, but many mailer's automatically accept the "Reply-To" address. Even if the responder is being diligent about checking mail headers, he'll have to open the original message and copy-and-paste your personal email address if he *doesn't* want to reply to the list. A major annoyance, and one that could lead to extra list traffic, which I don't like. IMHO, "Mail-Followup-To" is a cleaner solution. Additionally, it eliminates the "Please Cc me with responses because I am not subscribed to this list" type messages, as that information is provided in the mail headers. > 1. Very few MUAs currently implement Mail-Followup-To, which makes it > an ineffective solution in real life. Very true, though hopefully this will change, as I like the solution. It does seem to be more effective in more "tech"-oriented groups. > 2. As noted above, the problem is really with people who blindly invoke > the same function in their mailer for all kinds of replies, regardless > of what they really want to do. So, people who blindly hit "Reply All" > will still do so, and people who get into the habit of blindly hitting > "Group Reply" will end up sending private replies to a group. I find that most people have adjusted to the difference between "reply" and "Group Reply"/"Reply All" (I might not have been able to say the same thing, say, 5 years ago). However, mailing lists throw a monkey wrench in the works. I believe that the proper (and yes, complete) use of "Mail-Followup-To" keeps the semantics of "[Individual] Reply" and "Group Reply" the same when mailing lists are used, including whether or not the individuals are subscribed to the list. I like *my* solution, and I plan to stick to it. :-) -- Bob Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - "Parentheses in Perl are like shoes in the Caribbean." -- Larry Wall, creator of the Perl programming language * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Opinions on Reply-to (WAS: Abusing CC:)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, Dana S. Tellier hath spake thusly: > I have a better idea... how about (this has definitely been > mentioned before) people just take a moment to note who they're > replying to? Making a mistake and replying to all when you meant to > make a private reply or vice versa is HUMAN ERROR. Humans are quite often creatures of habit, and this error is, for that reason, hard to avoid for those people who it snags... > It is *not* the fault of the mail client, it is not because "they > had their reply-to set and I write so many e-mail messages, I > shouldn't *have* to check", or the developer's fault, or anyone > else's fault but your own. I have personal experience with doing > this (at WORK, no less...), and from what I gather, you do too, > Derek. Oh yes, as some people on this list who've been around long enough will attest... There's a certain squeegee joke that surfaces from time to time as a result. > However, I merely accepted the fact that I had written the e-mail > too quickly and had not paid enough attention to what I was doing. > (The reply-to was set to the group mailing list, btw) People need to > take the responsibility for their own actions. If you make a > mistake and send a private post to a group, or vice versa, that is > YOUR fault, and should be accepted as such. While I definitely agree with this sentiment, people make mistakes, and are creatures of habit, including in the types of mistakes they commonly make (have words that you commonly mistype?). Software can often very easily work around that fact, much as in this case. So if that's true, why not take advantage of it? FWIW, I no longer fall victim to that problem, thanks to the fact that Mutt has features for handling mailing lists, and a feature to ignore any reply-to header, both of which I use extensively. Were that not the case, I would fall prey to reply-to nearly every time the opportunity arose. Despite that, I'm still opposed to setting reply-to on general principle. The only valid reason to set it, IMO, is if you're (unavoidably, for some reason) sending mail from an address that can't be replied to, or at which you will not receive replies in time for some time-critical thing, and you need to make sure that replies will get to you. One more point, and then I'll shut up. This argument (reply-to vs. no reply-to) comes up very often on mailing lists. Ask yourself why that is. The answer, I believe, is that both behaviors annoy people. They contradict the way they work. In a sense, neither behavior is the "right" one. However, if the major mailers had well-designed and well-publicized features to deal with replying to mailing lists, I think this problem would likely go away entirely. - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9LanWdjdlQoHP510RApZJAJ91d1P7D4/sv2vZoRGj/vHIWbH39gCfaJYe twaP5wn5qaJ9113RdqnCQCY= =3zJQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Opinions on Reply-to (WAS: Abusing CC:)
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Derek D. Martin wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly: > > mwl's "Reply-To" suggestion is a good one. > > No, it isn't. The problem with setting reply-to is that it is done so > infrequently that a responder is highly unlikely to notice, or to > think of it. Except in the reletively rare instances when someone > does set the reply-to header, reply means "reply to sender only" -- > which (at least in the case where the user is using an e-mail client > that actually does know how to handle mailing lists) is invariably > what one wants. When one is replying to group e-mail which is not > distributed by a list manager, this is the behavior that one expects. > The trouble here is that mailing lists are different animals, and > should have support for being treated differently... > > I know many of the people on this list personally, and often for me, a > post incites a comment that I do want to share privately with them, > and not with the list. Setting reply-to will pretty much guarantee > that my private replies will be sent to the whole list. It won't take > much of that for me to unsubscribe. > > A much better solution, IMO, is to use an e-mail client that > understands mailing lists, or add support for it to your favorite > mailer, or complain to the developers until they do. > I've been trying to keep my big mouth shut on this one, but I just can't do it this time. I'm more often a lurker than not, but in this instance, I have some personal experience. I have a better idea... how about (this has definitely been mentioned before) people just take a moment to note who they're replying to? Making a mistake and replying to all when you meant to make a private reply or vice versa is HUMAN ERROR. It is *not* the fault of the mail client, it is not because "they had their reply-to set and I write so many e-mail messages, I shouldn't *have* to check", or the developer's fault, or anyone else's fault but your own. I have personal experience with doing this (at WORK, no less...), and from what I gather, you do too, Derek. However, I merely accepted the fact that I had written the e-mail too quickly and had not paid enough attention to what I was doing. (The reply-to was set to the group mailing list, btw) People need to take the responsibility for their own actions. If you make a mistake and send a private post to a group, or vice versa, that is YOUR fault, and should be accepted as such. While it is certainly understandable and *I* for one wouldn't ever give anyone any flak for it, I think leaving a list because of that is merely giving in to injured pride. Anyway, that's my many-cents worth. - Dana -- Dana S. Tellier Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Student Engineer University of New Hampshire InterOperability Lab 220 Morse Hall, NH 03824 Routing Consortium603-862-0090 FAX: 603-862-1761 * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly: > mwl's "Reply-To" suggestion is a good one. No, it isn't. The problem with setting reply-to is that it is done so infrequently that a responder is highly unlikely to notice, or to think of it. Except in the reletively rare instances when someone does set the reply-to header, reply means "reply to sender only" -- which (at least in the case where the user is using an e-mail client that actually does know how to handle mailing lists) is invariably what one wants. When one is replying to group e-mail which is not distributed by a list manager, this is the behavior that one expects. The trouble here is that mailing lists are different animals, and should have support for being treated differently... I know many of the people on this list personally, and often for me, a post incites a comment that I do want to share privately with them, and not with the list. Setting reply-to will pretty much guarantee that my private replies will be sent to the whole list. It won't take much of that for me to unsubscribe. A much better solution, IMO, is to use an e-mail client that understands mailing lists, or add support for it to your favorite mailer, or complain to the developers until they do. - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9LaB9djdlQoHP510RAmv2AKC35h7rQF5XBBWdy44aFjwKUu7Z1wCeNePQ r81nCv026WV8hus03vzOdfQ= =/TdQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, at 11:21pm, Bob Bell wrote: >> If you prefer to not get any 'private' replies, you could always set your >> reply-to to the list address... > > The problem here is that attempts at private replies will grab the list > address [0]. Any message sent to the list address is not a private reply. I suspect you really mean that people who blindly hit "Reply" will send to the wrong address. You're right, they will. But that's not the fault of the mail headers, it's pilot error. I've said this before and I'll say it again: Check your headers before sending, or you will do the Wrong Thing sooner or later. Personally, I generally prefer not to receive private replies from a public forum, and I definitely hate List Header Cancer. Setting "Reply-To" suits my purposes perfectly. That is how I want you to reply to my messages in this forum. > The "proper" solution, IMHO, is to set the Mail-Followup-To header [1]. Two problems with that: 1. Very few MUAs currently implement Mail-Followup-To, which makes it an ineffective solution in real life. 2. As noted above, the problem is really with people who blindly invoke the same function in their mailer for all kinds of replies, regardless of what they really want to do. So, people who blindly hit "Reply All" will still do so, and people who get into the habit of blindly hitting "Group Reply" will end up sending private replies to a group. "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." -- Ed Crowley > [0] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml This debate has been rehashed so many times it is starting to bore even me. I long ago reached the conclusion that there is no consensus on the issue, and thus the only solution that works everywhere is to check your headers before you invoke "Send". See above. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 02:49:27PM -0400, mike ledoux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The way your headers are coming through now, a well-behaved mail client > will suggest replying directly to you. If you prefer to not get any > 'private' replies, you could always set your reply-to to the list > address... The problem here is that attempts at private replies will grab the list address [0]. The "proper" solution, IMHO, is to set the Mail-Followup-To header [1]. mutt does this properly when you establish the list with the "subscribe" command [2]. For instance, for this email I simply hit "group reply", and since Mike Ledoux's mailer set Mail-Followup-To, my reply is going *only* to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Since I have told mutt I am subscribed to gnhlug, it will add a Mail-Followup-To header. [0] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html (though the points here are less significant, since setting Reply-To in this context is being proposed on a per-user basis) [1] http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-4.html#using_lists [2] http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-3.html#ss3.9 -- Bob Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - "Shipping software is an unnatural act" -- David Stafford * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
On Wednesday 10 July 2002 h:01, you wrote: > > The way your headers are coming through now, a well-behaved mail > > client will suggest replying directly to you. If you prefer to > > not get any 'private' replies, you could always set your reply-to > > to the list address... > > Ah! Good advice. Done. Yeah no kidding, most of the time the mail I get from the list has reply to the indicidual who sent it, and I have to add the list by hand. > > > * > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. > * * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, at 2:26pm, Michael O'Donnell wrote: > That also means that if that person CC's me directly when they post that > message, I will get a second copy. Yah. I call that "List Header Cancer", because the "Cc" header in a thread grows larger and larger as everyone who has ever participated in the thread gets added to the "Cc" list by people who blindly hit "Reply All" for every message they send. What's *really* fun is when someone who has no interest in the thread (anymore), and is not (or no longer) on the mailing list is still in the "Cc" header. Essentially, they are forced to receive all of the mail in that thread until it ends. For a list like LKML, where threads can go on for months and total hundreds of messages, that verges on abuse from the "Reply All" crowd. mwl's "Reply-To" suggestion is a good one. In fact, I don't know why I didn't think of that myself. (A few keystrokes later, and Pine knows that mail to GNHLUG gets a Reply-To header.) -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Re: Abusing CC:
> The way your headers are coming through now, a well-behaved mail > client will suggest replying directly to you. If you prefer to > not get any 'private' replies, you could always set your reply-to > to the list address... Ah! Good advice. Done. * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
Abusing CC:
Folks, FYI: my GNHLUG dues are paid in full and my subscription to this GNHLUG list is therefore fully active and working perfectly. That means that when somebody posts a message to this list, I'll get a copy. That also means that if that person CC's me directly when they post that message, I will get a second copy. While I'm sure we'd all agree that the messages posted here are profoundly valuable, I've found that one copy of any message is usually enough, so allow me to beg you all to please *FAIL* to cc: me if you're posting to the list, OK? Thank you for your attention... (Hmpf!) * To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *
