On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:39 PM, David Woodhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> Your mailer has a 'private reply' and a 'reply to all' feature, surely? > If you choose 'private reply' (often just labelled 'reply'), why would > you be surprised at what it does? It does indeed. And I would expect "reply" to reply to the sender of the email, ie: the list. > Some mailing lists do have an abusive setup which hijacks the *private* > reply and makes it go back to the list. And thus, things which were > meant to be *private* can end up being sent to the public list. That's a > stupid way to configure a list. This is how Google groups, Yahoo groups, Freelists, Majordomo etc work. Except with this list, when I click reply, it replies to the person who originally sent the post to the list. When I click "reply all", it seems to add in the sender, and sometimes a couple of other people from the list, and the list itself. So, either I have to manually edit the reply addresses, or several people get two copies of the reply. I'm on about 20 lists and none of them work this way. The other thing is the error messages: "The error that the other server returned was: 550-Mailing lists do not accept HTML mail". Might want to change that to "THIS mailing list does not accept html" The page linked to is http://david.woodhou.se/email.html which refers to itself as "normal rules of Netiquette". The page is dated as: Last modified: Sun Feb 9 11:16:11 GMT 2003 To be accurate, these are David's rules of Netiquette. Also, to be fair, this is your mailing list so you can run it how you like. I notice that some people point to RFC 2822 when discussing this issue: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt This is a document from 2001 - 12 years ago. The GNU group's own Imagine if we all did things like we did "back then"? Not just in society, but on the interwebs. We'd all be using html 4.01 and Netscape Navigator and the web wouldn't be very accessible. Almost everything we use today doesn't isn't "a fixed standard". It's at least another year before HTML5 is standardised. My wireless N connection isn't fully standardised. Sometimes, you could just do something because it's the progressive way, rather than the old way. It's why we don't have racial segragation any more. Also, it does kind of seem ironic that you run your mailing list to so tightly adhere to one interpretation of a perceived standard, RFC or "law" of doing things, and yet the mailing list itself is setup to discuss a method of violating a rule laid down by someone else, in other words to improve on something to make it more accessible to people. > The reverse-path of the message clearly identifies > where it comes from, so if you want to filter list traffic into a > separate folder... Each morning, I wake about 120 new messages, including many from about 20 mailing lists. I get about 10 minutes to skim these. I can see the subject and first couple of sentences. Which do you think is easier? 10 characters used to tag the subject and instantly see that "problems downloading" relates to get_iplayer and not my own sites? Or take a guess, or have 20 folders which I must tab through to see if there's anything of interest in each one? As I said - your list, your rules. I was merely explaining, as a user of many other lists, why I found this one harder to use ( a sentiment echoed by several others judging by a quick look through the archives). _______________________________________________ get_iplayer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
