On 2015-03-03 01:15 AM, Mike Owens wrote: > For clarity, here is the currently policy for Reply-to as it is set in > Mailman: > > > - Should any existing Reply-To: header found in the original message be > stripped? If so, this will be done regardless of whether an explict > Reply-To: header is added by Mailman or not. : *NO* > - Where are replies to list messages directed? *This list* > - Explicit Reply-To: header : *None*
Ah, thank you, all makes sense now. If you change the first option to YES then nobody else's quirky reply-to headers will get into the list, and the second option remains as is (it should be setting the standard @mailinglists reply-to field) - this should solve the duplication issue, but if it is disagreeable to anyone, more consideration is needed. Thanks again Mike for the list maintenance and the quick replies! Ryan > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:04 PM, R.Smith <rsmith at rsweb.co.za> wrote: > >> >> On 2015-03-03 12:42 AM, Darren Duncan wrote: >> >>> I think that what needs to be done is for each foo at sqlite.org to return >>> an error/undeliverable message if someone sends a message to it, citing >>> that all messages must be explicitly sent to the corresponding >>> foo at mailinglists.sqlite.org. That should handily solve the problem. -- >>> Darren Duncan >>> >> I see where you are coming from, but if the Reply-To field contains 2 >> email addresses and then the server penalizes you for using one of them, >> that might go down in history as the most-evil mailing-list quirk of all >> time. >> >> As to Mike's post - the dual mailing-list's reason for being is very clear >> and welcomed, no qualms there, just the Reply-to duplication that is >> quirky. I read all forum emails, I do not recall any multi-person decision >> to add this dual Reply-To thing, however memory is not my strength so I'm >> happy with the explanation - but I am wondering - is this done and dusted? >> Is there any chance we might re-open the discussion now that real-World >> scenarios have set in? >> >> It's an extremely minor irritation and will cause a few extra mail-traffic >> items at its worst - the only real casualty being my OCD, but I can't help >> thinking there is not a single good reason to keep the situation (unless >> someone can show the opposite). >> >> >> >> >>> On 2015-03-02 10:37 AM, Mike Owens wrote: >>> >>>> For what it is worth, the move to mailinglists.sqlite.org is a result of >>>> the Mailman web interface having to be hosted under the following two >>>> constraints: >>>> >>>> 1. It must be on port 80 >>>> 2. It cannot be on sqlite.org port 80 >>>> >>>> I explained this reasoning in a previous email. The short version is >>>> because we are using two web servers on the VM that hosts both the >>>> sqlite.org website and fossil repos (althttpd) and the Mailman web >>>> interface (Apache). We previously did this on a single IP where mailman >>>> was >>>> on port 8080. However, we had a significant number of complaints from >>>> people who could not reach the Mailman web interface via sqlite.org:8080 >>>> due to firewall restrictions in their respective locations. So we did >>>> what >>>> we could to move it to port 80. >>>> >>>> So to satisfy these two constraints, mailinglists.sqlite.org was born. >>>> Unless somebody else knows better, Mailman does not allow one to use two >>>> domains for a given list. Either something will screw up with the mail >>>> routing or in the web interface if you try to use more than one. You have >>>> to pick one domain and stick with it. Thus I could not continue to >>>> support >>>> both the previous sqlite.org (:8080) domain and the new >>>> mailinglists.sqlite.org (:80) for the users list. So I made the move >>>> from >>>> the one to the other. >>>> >>>> Regarding the reply-to policy. I honestly don't remember the reasoning >>>> behind it. I know there was a big long discussion about it in the past >>>> (search the list) and after the dust settled we chose the current policy >>>> and that is the way it is configured today. I do believe the policy was >>>> a >>>> result of the consensus of the mailing list users. I can say that we do >>>> everything we can to make most of the people happy most of the time. That >>>> is the very reason we made this change to begin with -- to make it >>>> possible >>>> for everyone to use the list. It would have been easier to just keep >>>> things >>>> the same and let the people who can't reach port 8080 deal with it, but >>>> we >>>> did what we had to to make it accessible for them as well. There are a >>>> lot >>>> of variables in the system and we juggle them as best we can. >>>> >>>> Any feedback or suggestions are always welcome. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:18 AM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 12:45 +0200, R.Smith wrote: >>>>>> Ok, I've found the source of the list duplications. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some emails (Such as the one by J.K. Lowden 2-March-2015 re: Characters >>>>>> corrupt after importing...) contains a "Reply-To" field in the header >>>>>> with both list addresses which must have sneaked in there due to some >>>>>> automatic list feature. (By "Both" I mean the old: >>>>>> sqlite-users at sqlite.org and the new: >>>>>> >>>>> sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org) >>>>> >>>>> You don't need that, do you? Just hitting Reply All to a message which >>>>> is: >>>>> To: sqlite-users at sqlite.org >>>>> Reply-To: sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org >>>>> >>>>> would generate a message which ends up going to both, wouldn't it? >>>>> >>>>> (I can't easily test; I've configured my mailer to ignore abusive >>>>> Reply-To: headers from mailing lists where it can detect them, so my >>>>> Reply and Reply All buttons actually do what I *ask* them to.) >>>>> >>>>> But looking at the first message in the 'PhD Student' thread, it appears >>>>> just as in my example above. And John KcKown's response of 26 Feb 2015 >>>>> 07:16:47 -0600 is indeed to both addresses, as if he'd done the correct >>>>> thing and simply hit 'Reply All'. >>>>> >>>>> I usually use the "Reply to List" button (Thunderbird) which replies >>>>>> correctly, >>>>>> >>>>> Note that that is considered extremely anti-social in many cases, >>>>> because it cuts some people out of discussions entirely. See >>>>> http://david.woodhou.se/reply-to-list.html for a full discussion. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> dwmw2 >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sqlite-users mailing list >>> sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org >>> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> sqlite-users mailing list >> sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org >> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users >> > >
