Mail-To Munging - was Re: Conslutancy
Grep ignored with :
Si wibbled at grep :
No. When you reply-all it replies to the sender *AND* the list. So the
sender gets two copies of everything. Which is just fricking irritating
*AND* a waste of bandwidth.
la la la la *has hands over ears* i cant here you, la la la la
Worse than this, the person who you are replying to tends to get their
copy not via the list. With a slow list server it means the sender gets a
copy *way* before the rest of the group. This tends to lead to
'tit-for-tat' type discussions that are simply 'broadcast' to the list as
the rest of the list don't even have a hope of keeping up and jumping in -
they're still getting the original message when another six or so have
been sent. This defeats the whole point of the the list.
Later.
Mark.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Conslutancy
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:38:31PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: la la la la *has hands over ears* i cant here you, la la la la The issue of millions-of-CCs needs to be addressed by anyone putting together a pro-reply-to: sender argument. Using procmail is *not* the right answer, neither is burdening the user with constantly editing the outgoing To: Cc: *every fscking email*. Simon's right: that document is bollocks and a retort on the web is long overdue. Here's what's so ironic: if you set the reply-to: and post to a majordomo list *it'll munge it to the From: address anyway* !! So a major argument in that document has the rug pulled out under it by a hugely used piece of MLM. MHO: If it's discursive, community list: reply-to: list If it's announcements or something where community and open conversation is not the important consideration: use reply-to: author. Paul
Re: Conslutancy
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 02:11:02PM -0600, Paul Makepeace wrote: On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:38:31PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: la la la la *has hands over ears* i cant here you, la la la la The issue of millions-of-CCs needs to be addressed by anyone putting together a pro-reply-to: sender argument. Using procmail is *not* the right answer, neither is burdening the user with constantly editing the outgoing To: Cc: *every fscking email*. I just use the list reply feature in my MUA. Michael
Re: Conslutancy
On Jan 22, 3:33pm, Andy Wardley wrote: Please consider yourself emailed. Damn, damn, damn! OK, it was my stupid mistake that I didn't check the headers before I clicked send, but I can't help thinking that the default Reply-to header should be to the sender, not the entire group. And I also note that this was originally sent to the defunct list (at least I think this is the defunct list???), so I've changed the To: header. So without wishing to start another holy war, is it possible to change the mailing list configuration to have a more sensible default Reply-to? And Dave, if you're reading this please add me to the conslutancy list. A -- Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signature regenerating. Please remain seated. [EMAIL PROTECTED] For a good time: http://www.kfs.org/~abw/
Re: Conslutancy
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:52:08PM +, DJ Adams wrote: On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:47:03PM +, Andy Wardley wrote: So without wishing to start another holy war, is it possible to change too late ;) the mailing list configuration to have a more sensible default Reply-to? No no! Please no! holy war Why surely the most sensible reply-to is no reply-to at all... /holy war
Re: Conslutancy
Andy Wardley wrote: So without wishing to start another holy war, is it possible to change the mailing list configuration to have a more sensible default Reply-to? rant I have arguments with Leon about this. He usually quotes 'Reply To munging considered harmful' (http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html) but as I keep trying to point out to him this document is bollocks. The main statemests it makes are ... 1) It violates the principle of minimal munging. Well, can't argue against that. Although I think the uses outway the principle. 2) It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer. What mailer? I use Netscape which amkes it a pain in the arse. But Netscape isn't a decent mailer you'll say. Ok. Pine. Pine has, IIRC a Reply and a 'Reply To All' capability. I believe Mutt is the same? How does non munging help here? 3) It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will direct a response. Bollocks. 4) It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer. Bollocks. 5) It removes important information, which can make it impossible to get back to the message sender. Bollocks. 6) It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to coddle those running brain-dead software. What mailer? Put it this way. How many times are you replying to a list and you actually want to reply to a person individually. 1 in 10? 1 in 50? So non-mungin helps in those cases. Whereas munging helps in the other 9 or 49 depednign on how concillitory you're being. 7) It violates the principle of least work because complicates the procedure for replying to messages. See above. 8) It violates the principle of least surprise because it changes the way a mailer works. Not true. You are in genrral reply-ing to the list. Not to the individual person. 9) It violates the principle of least damage, and it encourages a failure mode that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse. Hmmm. Fair enough I suppose. But more often I've replied to a mail and then gone back to repost it to the list. 10) Your subscribers don't want you to do it. Or, at least the ones who have bothered to read the docs for their mailer don't want you to do it. Subjective you honour. The prosecution is leading. /rant
Re: Conslutancy
* at 22/01 16:22 + Simon Wistow said: Andy Wardley wrote: So without wishing to start another holy war, is it possible to change the mailing list configuration to have a more sensible default Reply-to? rant I have arguments with Leon about this. He usually quotes 'Reply To munging considered harmful' (http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html) but as I keep trying to point out to him this document is bollocks. The main statemests it makes are ... snip 2) It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer. What mailer? I use Netscape which amkes it a pain in the arse. But Netscape isn't a decent mailer you'll say. Ok. Pine. Pine has, IIRC a Reply and a 'Reply To All' capability. I believe Mutt is the same? How does non munging help here? actually mutt has cool mailing list functions in that you can define a mailing list in the config and then l (or L, i forget) replies to the list rather than the person. not that i want this to degenerate into a mail client holy war :) struan
Re: Conslutancy
* Simon Wistow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Andy Wardley wrote: So without wishing to start another holy war, is it possible to change the mailing list configuration to have a more sensible default Reply-to? rant I have arguments with Leon about this. He usually quotes 'Reply To munging considered harmful' (http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html) but as I keep trying to point out to him this document is bollocks. The main statemests it makes are ... i'm ignoring all your points reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing, it means when you reply to a message you reply to author of that message, when you reply-all you reply to all its just the right thing so there
Re: Conslutancy
* Simon Wistow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Greg McCarroll wrote: reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing, it means when you reply to a message you reply to author of that message, when you reply-all you reply to all No. When you reply-all it replies to the sender *AND* the list. So the sender gets two copies of everything. Which is just fricking irritating *AND* a waste of bandwidth. la la la la *has hands over ears* i cant here you, la la la la Yes I could have a procmail rule to delete duplicate message IDs but some places I work (like here) I can't use procmail. i can and do -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: Conslutancy
* at 22/01 16:33 + Greg McCarroll said: * Struan Donald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: actually mutt has cool mailing list functions in that you can define a mailing list in the config and then l (or L, i forget) replies to the list rather than the person. not that i want this to degenerate into a mail client holy war :) war implies a large struggle, this would be more like a 5 second knockout - everyone knows mutt is the one true mail client well yes but some people are stubborn, plus there's always the school of thought that everyting should be done from within emacs... struan
Re: Conslutancy
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:26:32PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing, it means when you reply to a message you reply to author of that message, when you reply-all you reply to all trying...to...resist...AARGH! No no no! You're on a mailing list because you're corresponding with the group as a while so you want ot reply to the group as a whole too. Mailing list parallel in IRC: type something (i.e. path of least resistance) : goes to channel /dcc chat (extra effort) : goes to individual having a reply-to sender as default for a mailing list is very rude as you're presuming the 'default' exclusion of the very collective you're conversing with. If you want to make an aside to the person who actually posted something, then by all means change the To: to their email address. :-) DJ who thinks people who refer to the "...Considered Harmful" doc are guilty of cargo-cult meme-mongering. P.S. nice to come back to the list on a juicy non-Perl (!) topic ;-)
Re: Conslutancy
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:33:33PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: war implies a large struggle, this would be more like a 5 second knockout - everyone knows mutt is the one true mail client Now _that_ is something I can agree with g dj happy just to have realised he'll be able to make next week's meet
Re: Conslutancy
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:33:34PM +, Simon Wistow wrote: Greg McCarroll wrote: reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing, it means when you reply to a message you reply to author of that message, when you reply-all you reply to all No. When you reply-all it replies to the sender *AND* the list. So the sender gets two copies of everything. Which is just fricking irritating *AND* a waste of bandwidth. So you use list-reply like sensible people. Or you actually take the time to pay attention to who you're sending the message to. Aargh. help! i'm being drawn in! Michael
Re: Conslutancy
i'm ignoring all your points reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing, it means when you reply to a message you reply to author of that message, when you reply-all you reply to all its just the right thing so there Define sender then? the mailing list is the sender IMO (no H :-) /Robert
