On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Jed Brown wrote: > Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> writes: > > > On Wed, 17 Apr 2013, Jed Brown wrote: > > > >> John Doe sends email to petsc-users and the mailing list rewrites > >> Reply-To back to the list. Now any user hits reply-all and their mailer > >> gives them a message that replies *only* to petsc-users, dropping the > >> original author. This is a problem, > > > > Its a problem only if the author is not subscribed. > > If they are not subscribed OR if they have turned off delivery.
As mentioned this is a mailing list. And that 'minority' usage is possible with alternative workflow. subscribe and use a filter. > Even with delivery turned on, they cannot reliably filter using > "petsc-users AND NOT to:me" because their address will be > chronically dropped. This makes the list volume more burdensome. Again 'minority usage. Since one would not care about following list except for 'when they post' - They would filter list traffic into a different folder - and look at that folder only when they post to that list. As I claimed the usage is possible [for the minority use case]. Its insisting that the 'exact workflow' as with 'non-reply-to: lists' should be supported is not what I accept. > > > Or remove option 'subscribe-but-do-not-deliver' for our usage of > > 'Reply-To: list' > > That is back to the current model Whih I think is fine - and optimized for majority usage. And change has extra costs [which you are ignoring. > where (I think) many people ask questions on petsc-maint just > because it's more effort/noise to be subscribed to petsc-users with > delivery turned on. using petsc-maint is fine. But here you are suggesting using petsc-maint should be discouraged. > >> Perhaps a middle ground would be to have the list copy the From header > >> over to Reply-to (if it doesn't already exist) and then _add_ the list > >> address to Reply-to. That still isn't quite right when cross-posting, > >> but it would allow us to advertise "subscribe with delivery off and ask > >> questions on the list" or even "mail the list without subscribing" > >> instead of "always write petsc-maint if you can't be bothered to filter > >> the high-volume list". > > > > Earlier in the thread you've supported: reminder emails to folks doing > > 'reply' instead of 'reply-all:' as an acceptable thing. [and this > > happens a few times a day]. But here a reply of 'use petsc-maint' > > instead of subscribe-but-do-not-deliver with petsc-users' is suggested > > not good. [which happens so infrequently - except for configure.log > > sutff]. > > I think almost nobody uses subscribe-without-delivery to > petsc-users/petsc-dev because it's useless with the current reply-to > munging. I reply to the other point below. I doubt most users know about subscribe-without-delivery option of mailing lists. And I think most users think petsc-users as not a mailing list - but as petsc-maint. > > And I fail to see how 'e-mail petsc-maint without subscribing is not > > good - whereas 'email petsc-users without subscribing is a great > > feature'. [yeah you get archives on petsc-users - but I don't think > > uses are as much concerened about that.] > > Each time someone resolves their problem by searching and finding an > answer in the archives is one less time we have to repeat ourselves. > The lists are indexed by the search engines and they do come up in > searches. When a subject has already been discussed, linking a user to > that thread is much faster than retyping the argument and it encourages > them to try searching before asking. My perception is that a lot of > questions come up more than once on petsc-maint. We can only link them > to the archives if it has already been discussed on petsc-users, and > with so many discussions on petsc-maint, it's hard for us to keep track > of whether the topic has been discussed. I don't object to more archiving of issues. > > And I'll submit - its easier for most folks to send email to > > petsc-maint instead of figuring out 'subscribe-but-donot-deliver stuff > > on petsc-users'. [Yeah 'expert' mailing list users might expect > > "subscribe with delivery" workflow to work.] > > Which is why we would encourage them to write petsc-users, either via an > easy subscribe-without-delivery, or by having their original message > only go to a few of us, where a reply from any of us automatically > subscribes them without delivery. I already do the second part with the current mailing lists. [plenty of users post without subscribing every day - which goes into moderation. I appprove/subscribe that post.] > If the list interpreted any mail from a subscribed user as subscribing > the Cc's without delivery, we could also move discussions from > petsc-maint to petsc-users/petsc-dev any time the discussion does not > need to be kept private. I agree this usage is not supported currently. [but I don't know if that automatic-cc-subscribe-as-without-delivery is possible] > > Perhaps the problem here is - I view petsc-users and petsc-dev as > > public mailing lists - and primary purpose of public mailing lists is > > all to all communication mechanism. [so subscription/ reply-to make > > sense to me.] And petsc-maint as the longstanding > > non-subscribe/support or any type of conversation e-mail > > to-petsc-developers. > > I've always thought of petsc-maint as the intentionally _private_ help > venue. If the conversation does not have a good reason to be private, > then I'd rather see it on a public (searchable) list. the whole argument is more archives and email-without subscribing. I don't buy the stuff about "subscribe with delivery" or reply-to is breaking stuff. And the cost is more replies going to individuals. And some extra spam. And huge logs to subscribers. [and advertise petsc-users as support list - not mailing list]. > > But most use petsc-users [and some view it] as a support e-mail adress > > [with searchable archives]. If thats what it it - then > > no-subscribe-post or subscribe-but-do-not-deliver stuff would be the > > primary thing - and recommending that would make sense. And then we > > should be accepting build logs on it as well - and not worry about > > flooding users mailboxes iwth them. [compressed as openmpi list > > recommends] > > I wonder if we can do either (a) selective delivery of attachments > greater than some small threshold and/or I don't know if there is an option for that. Currently all moderators get such emails. > (b) create a [config] topic that people can unsubscribe from. > (Maybe leave unsubscribed by default.) > > http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-member/node30.html But the user has to set the correct topic in the subject line when they post? Again transfering decision from 'use petsc-users vs petsc maint' to use subject: 'installation' vs 'bugreport' vs 'general'. > > [what about petsc-dev? some use it as reaching petsc-developers - not > > petsc development discussions. > > I don't think that's a problem. > > > And what about petsc-maint? redirect to petsc-users and have > > petsc-developers an non-ambiguous place for non-public e-mails to > > petsc-developers?] > > How about converting the petsc-maint address to a mailing list that > allows anonymous posting, but that has private delivery. We don't use > RT numbers anyway. Then any time the discussion clearly doesn't need to > be private, we just move it to petsc-users or petsc-dev. Workable? I guess petsc-maint doesn't matter anymore - as everyone should be using petsc-users. I'll remove the limits on petsc-users and petsc-dev and add you as admin so you can set things up as you see fit. Satish
