Andreas Jellinghaus wrote: > > The motivations are, again: > > > > * to have one canonical mailing list address > > + meaning that mail to other addresses has some handling > > to help guide posters to the canonical address (ie. something > > better than current forwarding) > > fine with me, we can implement it as suggested.
Cool. I'm not sure exactly how to implement that $handling, it also depends a bit on what tools and processes are used on the server. > > * without lists. is more intuitive, shorter, and prettier, to me > > and that is a good reason to force everyone else to switch to > a different address? Maybe others agree with me, even if you do not. > At least I completely fail why changing the email address that > everyone else uses properly for years is any good. I think it would be an improvement. There is also crap code that only gets fixed after many years. Maybe not in our projects, but for sure in some others. > why ask hundreds of users to change their email settings (mail > filters, contact lists, address books etc.) only because of you > like one form more than the other. Again, maybe I'm not the only one who considers the suggestion to be an improvement. > and for me the whole argument about the length of the email address > is rediculous. these days I click on a mailto: link on the web page > and start typing the email. Obviously everyone else in the world does not have the same workflow as you. > at least it is this way for me, and I do think that about everyone > works this way these days. Even if that were so (which it isn't) then would that be a reason *not* to go forward with a proposed improvement? I think that's uncharacteristically conservative for an open source project. > so with this statistic, The statistic is not so relevant IMO. My reasoning is not that configuration is wrong because there are frequent mismatches between config and what users do. I said this; it's only now and then that there are duplicates. But that's too often. And in addition to that, I also raise the point that dropping lists. would be an improvement. Maybe I should have written separate emails. Prettier address, shorter, easier, no nonsense, maybe you will actually have to type it into a software at some point in the future (oh the horror) and can also benefit.. > is there any reason not to simply remove the aliases for the old > names and send a mail to those 6 people and ask the to update > their addressbook? For the third (fourth?) time, the most important thing to me is to only have one canonical list address, and in addition ideally handle mis-addressed messages during a transition period. I also think the lists. name is important to drop, but having a canonical address is much more important. I brought up both topics at the same time because when futzing around with email server anyway it would be nice to do both changes at once. //Peter _______________________________________________ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
