Hi!
Trying to kill the keyboard, [EMAIL PROTECTED] produced:
> The Reply-All feature of Netscape replies to all senders and other
> recipients, but logically assumes the direct recipient (you) doesn't
> want the reply. So every time I reply to a message, I have to put
> the list address in.
Huh?
Now, as far as I am concerned, I don't want a reply, if I am on
the list. I am on this list, so ... anything I write to the
list does get returned to me by the list. I understand that you
can instruct the list software not to do that.
>From what you say I understand that Reply-All is just what you
want, or isn't it?
> I don't think that making it harder for people with inadequate mail
> programs is a very nice target to set yourself on. I have seen no
> reply-to headers on any messages from this list, and assiming the
> original sender of the message is on the list, replying to the
> list address will make them recieve the message anyway.
Yes, but.
1. I see Reply-To headers:
(Most recent post using that pair of From & Reply-To, with
From != Reply-To ... many people send a Reply-To even when
it's not strictly neccessary)
(Note that case is allowed to be sensitive in the username,
even if most mailers do not care about case)
From: Kai Makisara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:20:08 +0200 (EET)
From: Clifford Wesley Fulford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:55:36 +0100 (CET)
From: Garrett Nievin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Garrett Nievin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:24:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Henry Cheung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:52:43 -0500 (EST)
From: John Mulkerin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 21:22:14 -0800
From: John Mulkerin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 19:44:15 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Jacobs)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Jacobs)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 21:05:59 +0100 (MET)
From: "Perry E. Gilfillan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 18:53:53 -0600
From: Piotr Szeptynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Piotr Szeptynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:55:05 +0100 (CET)
From: Rainer Lassahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:20:20 +0100
From: Skip Egley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:13:25 -0600
From: wayne horner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 00:56:22 -0800
Since December there have been at least 144 posts with a set
Reply-To sent to the list.
2. While you may usually safely assume that people are on the
list, it's not always true.
> 9 out of 10 times, replies to list mail should go to the list,
> and if you send a private message you should check that it
> is going to who you want it to.
Pray tell, if we munged Reply-To, how would I have known
to contact Skip Egley or Perry E. Gilfillan, for example?
There's no sign *other* than the Reply-To. Also, do you really
want me to check very closely on every 10th mail whether there is
some small, easy-to-oversee 'you must mail me at this address'
somewhere in the signature? Just because you are unwilling to
use Reply-All or an alias (say tape) for the list?
> Coupled with the fact I find
> it very annoying to recieve two of the same message from
> lists that don't have the courtesy to provide a working reply-to.
That's what you have procmail for.
---------------------------------------------------------------
# filter out duplicates, using a 16 KB cache for Msg-Ids
:0 Whc: msgid.lock
| formail -D 16384 msgid.cache
# and put them into a different folder, just in case
:0 a:
duplicates
---------------------------------------------------------------
> Including a reply-to will not cause a major hindrance for most
> mail programs, but leaving it out will.
Including it will make some people hard to reach, and others
impossible to reach. I think that is counter the intention of
email.
> And in conclusion, I
> hate HTML mail but using my browser as a mail program saves
> RAM and disk space for me, which is a priority.
$ ls -la `which mutt`
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 360348 Mar 1 10:36 /usr/local/bin/mutt*
$ ls -la `which netscape`
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Jan 12 1998
/usr/local/bin/netscape -> netscape-3.01*
$ ls -la `which netscape-3.01`
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root root 4505716 Jan 12 1998
/usr/local/bin/netscape-3.01*
$ netscape &
$ ps aux | grep -E "mutt|netscape|PID"
USER PID %CPU %MEM SIZE RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
weissel 8367 0.0 7.7 2920 2412 p2 S 10:33 0:03 mutt -Z
weissel 9788 0.0 5.1 3332 1620 p2 S 12:15 0:02 vim +/^$/+1 /tmp/mutt
weissel 10536 1.5 15.6 7832 4900 p6 S 13:06 0:03 netscape
weissel 10626 0.0 1.1 900 348 p9 S 13:10 0:00 grep -E mutt|netscape
$
I think we both agree that Netscape 4.x is much larger. RAM I
can somewhat understand (but then I'd prefer a smaller browser :-)
(And yes, both executables are stripped.)
-Wolfgang
--
PGP 2 welcome: Mail me, subject "send PGP-key".
Unsolicited Bulk E-Mails: *You* pay for ads you never wanted.
How to dominate the Internet/WWW/etc? Destroy the protocols! See:
http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html
