On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 06:06:34AM -0400, Georgina wrote:
from the xwin master himself:
Around 21 o'clock on Jul 15, Trevor Woerner wrote:
Could the mailing list options be set such that replies are by default
sent back to the list, instead of by default sent to the sender?
Yes.. I
Maybe instead of directing them to the email address, you should have a message
directing them to a FAQ / troubleshooting page?
- Christian
From: Egbert Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2003/07/15 Tue AM 08:04:30 EDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [XFree86] Xpert, Any software just
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 02:04:30PM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
David Dawes writes:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 05:21:43PM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
Whenever the server terminates with a FatalError() it tells the user
to send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This creates an enormous amount of
David Dawes writes:
Has anyone investigated the root cause of why there is no fixed font in
the first place -- like why the font server isn't running? Was it never
started (a vendor-specific configuration problem), or did it crash (a
robustness problem with xfs)?
There seems to be
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, David Dawes wrote:
Has anyone investigated the root cause of why there is no fixed font in
the first place -- like why the font server isn't running? Was it never
started (a vendor-specific configuration problem), or did it crash (a
robustness problem with xfs)?
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 10:12:35PM -0400, gabe f wrote:
harmful in that it adds traffic to the list? I learn things by hearing
replies that
people might have (inadvertantly) made direct to the author. If the
reply-to
field was not munged people would have to choose to make the
threads
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 04:10:58PM -0600, Marc Aurele La France wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Andy Goth wrote:
On Tuesday, July 8, 2003 12:05 pm, Egbert Eich wrote:
Daniel Stone writes:
I also hope like hell Mailman isn't munging Reply-To, because that's
just *wrong*.
Hm, I
On Tuesday, July 15, 2003 8:26 pm, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 04:10:58PM -0600, Marc Aurele La France wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Andy Goth wrote:
On Tuesday, July 8, 2003 12:05 pm, Egbert Eich wrote:
Daniel Stone writes:
I also hope like hell Mailman isn't munging
David Dawes writes:
I don't think it matters, because:
1. The original poster may read the answer via one of the archives of
this list. How would we ever know?
2. If the original poster chooses to not follow up their question, that
is their choice. Given that
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 05:21:43PM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
Whenever the server terminates with a FatalError() it tells the user
to send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This creates an enormous amount of traffic here even if it is a user
problem has been answered several times already - like our
On Monday 14 July 2003 06:38 pm, Peter \ wrote:
There is a wiki at http://xwin.org:9673/xwin/FrontPage
Granted, it is not run by the XFree86 people but by xwin.org, a
potentially competing group of people -- who have already showed that they
are dissatisfied with the way XFree86 is run.
David Dawes writes:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 07:05:29PM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
I have just checked the replies on the xfree86@ list.
Most of them contain just the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses.
I can't speak for others, but most of my replies (including this one)
are like that by
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Egbert Eich wrote:
David Dawes writes:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 07:05:29PM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
I have just checked the replies on the xfree86@ list.
Most of them contain just the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses.
I can't speak for others, but most of my replies
Marc Aurele La France writes:
If you attend a meeting and introduce a new agenda item, it behooves you
to remain at that meeting at least until the new item is discussed. Not
doing so is just plain rude, and wastes everyone else's time.
Why do people think mailing lists are any
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 02:21:54PM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
David Dawes writes:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 07:05:29PM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
I have just checked the replies on the xfree86@ list.
Most of them contain just the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses.
I can't speak for others, but
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 05:41:54PM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
Marc Aurele La France writes:
If you attend a meeting and introduce a new agenda item, it behooves you
to remain at that meeting at least until the new item is discussed. Not
doing so is just plain rude, and wastes everyone
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 02:21:54PM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
David Dawes writes:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 07:05:29PM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
I have just checked the replies on the xfree86@ list.
Most of them contain just the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses.
I can't speak for
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, David Dawes wrote:
When Joe Newuser does this, he gets an automatic reply telling him that
he may miss replies to his message if he doesn't subscribe to the list.
Disregard (parts of) my last email then.
I apologize.
-Peter
If two men agree on everything, you may be
David Dawes writes:
But we do say that (in an auto-reply), as I've said at least twice already.
I only saw your second answer after writing the message that lead to
this.
I don't think the following sequence is unreasonable:
1. user posts to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. user gets
sorry, posted this before reading all of the emails in my inbox :)
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 02:21 PM, gabe f wrote:
maybe you've been on the list for a long time, but the list
automatically
gives you such info when you post to it for the first time.
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 08:21 AM,
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:39:14PM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
Jay R. Ashworth writes:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 02:21:54PM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
I believe that if your mailer doesn't either a) include the RT address in a
group or b) ask, that your mailer is borken.
No, I don't think
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 07:33:42PM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
David Dawes writes:
But we do say that (in an auto-reply), as I've said at least twice already.
I only saw your second answer after writing the message that lead to
this.
I don't think the following sequence is unreasonable:
On Tuesday, July 8, 2003 12:05 pm, Egbert Eich wrote:
Daniel Stone writes:
I also hope like hell Mailman isn't munging Reply-To, because that's
just *wrong*.
Hm, I don't know what you would call munging, it puts the list address
into the Reply-To.
Daniel is probably referring to:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Andy Goth wrote:
On Tuesday, July 8, 2003 12:05 pm, Egbert Eich wrote:
Daniel Stone writes:
I also hope like hell Mailman isn't munging Reply-To, because that's
just *wrong*.
Hm, I don't know what you would call munging, it puts the list address
into the
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 04:31:16PM -0500, Andy Goth wrote:
On Tuesday, July 8, 2003 12:05 pm, Egbert Eich wrote:
Daniel Stone writes:
I also hope like hell Mailman isn't munging Reply-To, because that's
just *wrong*.
Hm, I don't know what you would call munging, it puts the list address
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 04:10:58PM -0600, Marc Aurele La France wrote:
Hm, I don't know what you would call munging, it puts the list address
into the Reply-To.
Daniel is probably referring to:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
... which expresses an opinion not that
harmful in that it adds traffic to the list? I learn things by hearing
replies that
people might have (inadvertantly) made direct to the author. If the
reply-to
field was not munged people would have to choose to make the
threads readable by the list ( like a news group). If they didn't think
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 08:40:39PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 04:10:58PM -0600, Marc Aurele La France wrote:
Hm, I don't know what you would call munging, it puts the list address
into the Reply-To.
Daniel is probably referring to:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 10:19:12PM -0400, David Dawes wrote:
No, it's that widely held. Been on mailing lists since I had a bang path.
It's harmful. Believe me.
It's still an *opinion*. 11 years of dealing with XFree86 mailing
lists have shown me that for everyone who agrees with it,
So then, why do you subscribe to the list, you could just read the
emails on the website,
thereby saving all of that internet traffic, by only viewing the email
body text that appealed to you
by its subject, and you wouldn't have to deal with those harmful
vacation auto-replies, either?
the
On Thursday, July 10, 2003 5:12 pm, David Dawes wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 04:31:16PM -0500, Andy Goth wrote:
On Tuesday, July 8, 2003 12:05 pm, Egbert Eich wrote:
Daniel Stone writes:
I also hope like hell Mailman isn't munging Reply-To, because that's
just *wrong*.
Hm, I
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 12:42:05AM -0500, Andy Goth wrote:
On Thursday, July 10, 2003 5:12 pm, David Dawes wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 04:31:16PM -0500, Andy Goth wrote:
On Tuesday, July 8, 2003 12:05 pm, Egbert Eich wrote:
Daniel Stone writes:
I also hope like hell Mailman isn't
Mark Vojkovich writes:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:07:10PM +0100, Aldous Everard wrote:
Is this the sort of emails you want to this list? Suggest blocking
CheapWarez
If every single spammer to this list got blocked, it'd take half an
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
No, [EMAIL PROTECTED] isn't a members only list.
It is for everybody to send in support questions.
We don't require these people to subscribe themselves.
One could probably think about a 'opt-in' method where
people who are not
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
At least for me this creates the problem that when I resond to an
email on this list (doing a 'respond all') my mailer only uses the
addresses from the Reply-To: and the Cc: fields.
If the original author hasn't added himself to
Daniel Stone writes:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
No, [EMAIL PROTECTED] isn't a members only list.
It is for everybody to send in support questions.
We don't require these people to subscribe themselves.
One could probably think about a 'opt-in'
CheapWarez.com
If you don't have enough money to buy needed software or think desired software
isn't worth the price, then this service is right for you. We make software to
be near you. Order any software you need for a low price.
For example if you go into a shop and buy Windows XP Pro, for
Is this the sort of emails you want to this list? Suggest blocking
CheapWarez
On Mon, 2003-07-07 at 19:52, D.gray wrote:
CheapWarez.com
If you don't have enough money to buy needed software or think desired software
isn't worth the price, then this service is right for you. We make
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:07:10PM +0100, Aldous Everard wrote:
Is this the sort of emails you want to this list? Suggest blocking
CheapWarez
If every single spammer to this list got blocked, it'd take half an hour
for every message to pass the killfile check.
--
Daniel Stone
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:07:10PM +0100, Aldous Everard wrote:
Is this the sort of emails you want to this list? Suggest blocking
CheapWarez
If every single spammer to this list got blocked, it'd take half an hour
for every message to pass the
40 matches
Mail list logo
