Le 29/05/2018 à 01h35, Ángel a écrit : > On 2018-05-28 at 23:21 +0200, Garreau, Alexandre wrote: >> On 2018-05-28 at 15:40, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: >> > Reply-To-List is the only option anyone should ever use, IMNSHO. Doing >> > anything else is bad netiquette. >> >> Really? When beginning first to use mailing lists I was curious about >> such a practice, but I tried to read again Netiquitte and didn’t found >> anything related [1]. > > People have different views on this.
Until then I keep being put “To” of mails coming from GNU mailing lists, and am happy with this due to the semantical meaning of “To” I constructed in my mind. But how of other views? how widespread is each one? why? >> Also that means if I didn’t subscribed to this >> list (I almost didn’t, then did, since Evolution was my first mail >> user-agent, a major one, and I might be interested in its, heh, >> evolution) I would never have received an answer, > > Generally, if you write to a mailing list, you are expected to either be > subscribed (in fact, you often can't send there without subscribing > first), or politely request to be CCed in your email. Oh, what a good idea! I might even add this in a signature (then why not to be put in the To when appropriate?)? Or what about a special header to convey a such meaning so that to disambiguate the meaning of To and Cc headers? > Also, maybe you are not interested in receiving everything, but failing > everything else you should at least check the archives for replies. > > (there are also other use cases, like people reading the mailing list > through a mail2news gateway) I dislike web (archives) :/ still nntp would be a clean option. > Some mailing lists function differently, however, such as those support > emails which are actually backed by a mailing list, in which the > customer is not (and can not be) a subscriber. Thus, there it is known > that the customer only receives emails explicitly directed to him, and > Reply to all must be used. Oh, I recall sometimes having mail returned because of a such mailing list policy! Maybe then an unambiguous and formal usage may be not to add To/Cc on mailing-lists disallowing unsubscribed mail address to send mail through them? Then maybe special mailing-list headers on mail could also convey a such meaning to be more widely known by user-agents… But isn’t it complicated to keep a that complicated behavior, with headers semantics depending of context, mailing-list, people, etc. and obligating people to have more complex mail formats, understanding, usage and maybe messaging systems (mailing lists, newsgroups, etc.) rather than slightly more complicated user-agents, with a lot more simpler semantics? >> as I believe neither mailman nor sympa do have the (complicated) >> feature of keeping track of subjects, references and reply-to headers >> so that to send to unsubscribed senders to the mailing-list messages >> [which] answer or references what they sent. Especially that would >> impedes the ability to privately react and discuss about the sent may >> privately before to maybe answer back a maybe more reflected and >> collective answer. Yet I guess that too might be considered bad >> netiquette, as until then I only twice were answered on a mailing >> list without having been directly mailed: once before my mail, and >> once with this one. > > That would be a bad idea for a mailing list to do automatically. > It should actually be a user subscription option. In addition to receive > emails / don't receive / receive as a digest, you would have a "receive > only mails from threads where I have participated" option. > And yes, that would be a complicated feature to implement. I thought to such checkboxes/options, such as, for instance “mail me too altogether as other mailing-list members” or “mail me a remainder” or “don’t mail me messages with such and such topics / subjects / tags / headers / content-warning” or here, either “don’t mail me again mails that are already also addressed to me through To, Cc or Bcc” or, possibly, but a bit more complicated, “don’t mail me first-messages of each thread / each topic” (not the same thing as a thread may change topic by having one of its participant changing its subject line). But it won’t be possible to set a such setting for someone who never subscribed, hence, never were exposed to such checkboxes. And my “receive only mail from threads where I have participated” idea was “only receive mails from threads I started”, and explicitly directed towards *unsubscribed* members. Also your “receive only mails from threads where I have participated” would require from the user, if not basing on the subject line, to download (and extract from the month-wide mbox file) the given mail, to answer it. Because otherwise they would never receive mails at all, then could never answer. Or then that would be a really special “subscription” where you never receive any mail at all, except answers to the threads *you* started… and that’s the default behavior of any mailing list allowing to post while being unsubscribed, when their members add the aforementioned person in the “To:” or “Cc:” headers. > I would consider that I am replying to the person whose text I am > quoting above. > (Or rather, i am probably replying to the *ideas* expressed therein, not > as much as the human who typed them) Wow, much interesting idea, I like it. Thank you. _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
