Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct
Hello, On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 10:44:07AM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 13/03/11 08:19, Ben Finney wrote: Shachar Shemeshshac...@debian.org writes: I am subscribed to lots and lots of mailing lists. All mail from those lists gets automatically delivered to dedicated folders automatically. This means I'm highly likely to miss a reply to my own emails to the list unless I get another, direct, copy (which doesn't have the list hidden headers, and therefor stays in my inbox). I *like* to get two copies, as it increases the chance that I actually get to see the replies to my own emails. If you like to get two copies, why can't you arrange to generate the extra copies you want without involving anyone else's configuration? Any suggestions on how to do it? I have a similar configuration with many separate folders for mailing lists. I receive mail with fetchmail and employ procmail for sorting mail out (probably, not a common setup nowadays). My trick to get extra copies of direct replies to my own mails in mailing lists (I place such copies into a dedicated folder) is to keep a local cache of Message-IDs of my own sent messages and then check In-Reply-To: header in the received mails against this cache. It is done with a couple of relatively simple rules in ~/.procmailrc that make use of formail and grep. -- Stanislav -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110402232947.GA13619@kaiba.homelan
Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: My trick to get extra copies of direct replies to my own mails in mailing lists (I place such copies into a dedicated folder) is to keep a local cache of Message-IDs of my own sent messages and then check In-Reply-To: header in the received mails against this cache. It is done with a couple of relatively simple rules in ~/.procmailrc that make use of formail and grep. Seems like one could do something similar with notmuch? If someone has done that I'd encourage you to blog about it and post a link here. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/banlktim8d3__3hrsuk_kjon3h889pnr...@mail.gmail.com
Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct
Hello Shachar Shemesh, Am 2011-03-13 19:54:01, hacktest Du folgendes herunter: If I set reply-to to myself, the mail won't go to the list. If I set it to the list, it won't go to me. Either way, the desired effect isn't achieved. Also, reply-to is the wrong tool for this job (this is NOT what it's for), as it prohibits distinction between replies to the list and reply to me. If I remember right another discussion in the past about Reply-To: and Mail-Followup-To: you can specify more then one E-Mail like Reply-To: shac...@shemesh.biz, debian-devel@lists.debian.org or Mail-Followup-To: shac...@shemesh.biz, debian-devel@lists.debian.org Note: I am not subscribed to any Debian Lists except whitelist and on mailinglists which support nomail, it is REALY annoying, if someone send me useless messages of several 100 kByte to my cell-phone. If I have the need for list-help/infos I read it from an archive, but my business E-Mail must be clean. And no, filtering of messages is no option, because I get to many false-positives du to my customers which are On-List too. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack -- # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant ## Development of Intranet and Embedded Systems with Debian GNU/Linux itsystems@tdnet France EURL itsystems@tdnet UG (limited liability) Owner Michelle KonzackOwner Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 (homeoffice) 50, rue de Soultz Kinzigstraße 17 67100 Strasbourg/France 77694 Kehl/Germany Tel: +33-6-61925193 mobil Tel: +49-177-9351947 mobil Tel: +33-9-52705884 fix http://www.itsystems.tamay-dogan.net/ http://www.flexray4linux.org/ http://www.debian.tamay-dogan.net/ http://www.can4linux.org/ Jabber linux4miche...@jabber.ccc.de ICQ#328449886 Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct
Hello Carsten Hey, Am 2011-03-12 10:50:03, hacktest Du folgendes herunter: If a message I reply to contains a Mail-Followup-To: set, I use it. If not, I guess if the person I reply to wants to receive a reply. To prevent me to Cc: you, you need to explicitly set Mail-Followup-To: to the list. Which is not supported by many MUAs expecialy on Smartphones, PDAs or MUAs Android which I use in my business. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack -- # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant ## Development of Intranet and Embedded Systems with Debian GNU/Linux itsystems@tdnet France EURL itsystems@tdnet UG (limited liability) Owner Michelle KonzackOwner Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 (homeoffice) 50, rue de Soultz Kinzigstraße 17 67100 Strasbourg/France 77694 Kehl/Germany Tel: +33-6-61925193 mobil Tel: +49-177-9351947 mobil Tel: +33-9-52705884 fix http://www.itsystems.tamay-dogan.net/ http://www.flexray4linux.org/ http://www.debian.tamay-dogan.net/ http://www.can4linux.org/ Jabber linux4miche...@jabber.ccc.de ICQ#328449886 Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct
On 13/03/11 08:19, Ben Finney wrote: Shachar Shemeshshac...@debian.org writes: Personally, I think the code of conduct should be amended, along with the list software. While this shouldn't turn into a counting of popularity, I'd like to register that there are people who think the list behaviour currently (leave the Reply-To field untouched) is correct. Never mentioned Reply-To, don't think Reply-To munging is correct, and don't understand why you brought it up. When talking about change to the list software, I was referring to the Avoid duplicates option, discussed below. I am subscribed to lots and lots of mailing lists. All mail from those lists gets automatically delivered to dedicated folders automatically. This means I'm highly likely to miss a reply to my own emails to the list unless I get another, direct, copy (which doesn't have the list hidden headers, and therefor stays in my inbox). I *like* to get two copies, as it increases the chance that I actually get to see the replies to my own emails. If you like to get two copies, why can't you arrange to generate the extra copies you want without involving anyone else's configuration? Any suggestions on how to do it? Conversely, I *don't* want any message to the forum to also be sent to me individually via email. In some cases that's because the individual message arrives first, is often read first, yet is the one that I want to avoid receiving. No filter can help with that, since it has no “other copy” to work with at the time it's needed. In other cases that's because I don't participate in the forum via email at all, so I don't want to receive any messages in that forum via email. I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I will point out that disregarding unwanted messages is easier to do with filters than generating new ones (and, more importantly, automatically figuring out for which messages duplicates should be generated). I understand and respect the fact that other people, due to using a mail client that does not allow filtering based on hidden headers, because they are only subscribed to a couple of mailing lists, or for whatever other reason, do not appreciate the extra copy. The problem is that I cannot tell them apart. Why do you need to tell those classes of people apart? Why is being unable to tell them apart a problem? As an example - the list charter clearly states that if someone indicates they wish to receive a copy you should CC him. I do not think I could have more clearly indicated my wish to do so than in my previous email, and yet you didn't. The reason I need to tell those apart from those is because that's what the list's charter says I should do. This is impossible to follow, and therefor should be amended. Since the default for all non-mailing list communication should be reply to all (after all, if someone decided to CC a third party on a conversation they started with you, it's a bit impolite to cut said third party off from the reply) I object to this idea quite strongly. The “forgot to include someone” mistake you identify is easily rectified after the message is sent; the “included someone whom I didn't intend” is impossible to rectify after the fact. For that reason among others, “reply to all” should not be the default but should be a deliberate decision in each instance. I totally accept that argument in the context of automatically adding reply to to lists, but not as a code of conduct for email at large. This is why I specifically said non-mailing list communication. If I wrote you an email, and thought it necessary to CC someone, then this discussion is obviously part of a discussion said someone need to be aware of. It would be impolite of you to exclude him from your answer unless there is a good reason to do so. In other words, the default (not the software's default - your default as a human) should be to reply to all. There is a growing trend to make hitting reply to all illegitimate under any and all circumstances, which I think is in error. The solution I propose is already implemented in mailing list software such as mailman. In it, there is a per-user settable flag called avoid duplicates. I'm not a “user” recognised by the mailing list servers of many of the forums in which I participate, so your proposal is not a solution for my case. I know I'm not the only one who participates in Debian (and other) mailing lists as non-email forums. But I believe that this is also something that can be resolved using technical means. I think the current policy is unnecessarily complex if followed, and in practice is not followed at all, leading to sub-optimal behavior. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd. http://www.lingnu.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct
Le samedi 12 mars 2011 à 10:50 +0100, Carsten Hey a écrit : I set Mail-Followup-To: on every mail I send to *@lists.debian.org. Most DDs just ignore it (though there are some exceptions) and this renders using Mail-Followup-To: to get a copy to be rather useless. Maybe this is because Mail-Followup-To is not part of any standard of any kind, making it unimplemented in a large number of MUAs. Add to this the fact that it is overly complex to implement in a sane and intuitive way; unless you know what it really means (which is different for each MUA on the receiving end), users just wouldn’t know what to put in it. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct
On Du, 13 mar 11, 10:44:07, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 13/03/11 08:19, Ben Finney wrote: If you like to get two copies, why can't you arrange to generate the extra copies you want without involving anyone else's configuration? Any suggestions on how to do it? By setting 'Reply-To:' appropriately, this is what it's for. Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct
On 13/03/11 11:29, Andrei Popescu wrote: Any suggestions on how to do it? By setting 'Reply-To:' appropriately, this is what it's for. If I set reply-to to myself, the mail won't go to the list. If I set it to the list, it won't go to me. Either way, the desired effect isn't achieved. Also, reply-to is the wrong tool for this job (this is NOT what it's for), as it prohibits distinction between replies to the list and reply to me. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd. http://www.lingnu.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d7d04b9.2050...@shemesh.biz
Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct
On Du, 13 mar 11, 19:54:01, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 13/03/11 11:29, Andrei Popescu wrote: Any suggestions on how to do it? By setting 'Reply-To:' appropriately, this is what it's for. If I set reply-to to myself, the mail won't go to the list. If I set it to the list, it won't go to me. Either way, the desired effect isn't achieved. At least with mutt I distinctively recall it replied both to the list and CCd the poster on list-reply. Not sure about other mailers though and you could also set Reply-To: to both the list and your address. Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct
On 13/03/11 20:55, Andrei Popescu wrote: At least with mutt I distinctively recall it replied both to the list and CCd the poster on list-reply. That is a specific Mutt work around for broken lists that add reply-to automatically. It is not generally available. Not sure about other mailers though and you could also set Reply-To: to both the list and your address. A. I'm not at all sure what the standard says about multiple Reply-To: headers. I don't think they are supported B. Even if they are, they still don't allow people to reply privately. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd. http://www.lingnu.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d7d9e6f.1060...@shemesh.biz
Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct
* jida...@jidanni.org [2011-03-12 11:14 +0800]: Recently I replied to a certain message on this list with my familiar S W runs the command gnus-summary-wide-reply-with-original keystrokes, only to receive I'm subscribed to the list, no need to CC me: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct No need to reply to this message. ... I set Mail-Followup-To: on every mail I send to *@lists.debian.org. Most DDs just ignore it (though there are some exceptions) and this renders using Mail-Followup-To: to get a copy to be rather useless. There are examples where we lost potential future maintainers because they never received a reply to an RFS. These replies were sent to the list, but they were not sent to those requesting sponsorship. Therefore perhaps http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct could be amended to mention that adding a Mail-Followup-To header might add an additional wall of defense for those who wish to cut down even further the possibility they might receive a courtesy copy from the less technically adept. I agree. If a message I reply to contains a Mail-Followup-To: set, I use it. If not, I guess if the person I reply to wants to receive a reply. To prevent me to Cc: you, you need to explicitly set Mail-Followup-To: to the list. Carsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110312095003.ga17...@furrball.stateful.de
Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct
* Carsten Hey [2011-03-12 10:50 +0100]: There are examples where we lost potential future maintainers because they never received a reply to an RFS. These replies were sent to the list, but they were not sent to those requesting sponsorship. To clarify this: the problem was not that Mail-Followup-To: has been ignored, but the partly insane code of conduct. How should new people know that they don't get a copy of replies to their messages unless they explicitly request one? Regards Carsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110312115729.gb17...@furrball.stateful.de
Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:57:29PM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
[...]
How should new people know that they don't get a copy of replies
to their messages unless they explicitly request one?
Maybe it's a generational difference... as I expect did authors of
the code of conduct, I came up on bulletin boards and Usenet in the
80s, where it was common courtesy to read any FAQ, CoC or other
relevant documentation (and even lurk for a while if possible) to
get a sense of the community's prevailing practices and culture
before participating in discussion. Every culture, no matter its
size, has distinct conventions and taboos, and not endeavoring to
learn them first before attempting to interact often results in
friction.
--
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); PGP(43495829);
WHOIS(STANL3-ARIN); SMTP(fu...@yuggoth.org); FINGER(fu...@yuggoth.org);
MUD(kin...@katarsis.mudpy.org:6669); IRC(fu...@irc.yuggoth.org#ccl);
ICQ(114362511); YAHOO(crawlingchaoslabs); AIM(dreadazathoth); }
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110312154822.gx1...@yuggoth.org
Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct
Shachar Shemesh shac...@debian.org writes: Personally, I think the code of conduct should be amended, along with the list software. While this shouldn't turn into a counting of popularity, I'd like to register that there are people who think the list behaviour currently (leave the Reply-To field untouched) is correct. So far, my research shows that the difference between people (like myself) who prefer to get the two copies and people who don't does not depend on level of technical knowledge, but specifics of method of reading the lists. That sounds right. I am subscribed to lots and lots of mailing lists. All mail from those lists gets automatically delivered to dedicated folders automatically. This means I'm highly likely to miss a reply to my own emails to the list unless I get another, direct, copy (which doesn't have the list hidden headers, and therefor stays in my inbox). I *like* to get two copies, as it increases the chance that I actually get to see the replies to my own emails. If you like to get two copies, why can't you arrange to generate the extra copies you want without involving anyone else's configuration? Conversely, I *don't* want any message to the forum to also be sent to me individually via email. In some cases that's because the individual message arrives first, is often read first, yet is the one that I want to avoid receiving. No filter can help with that, since it has no “other copy” to work with at the time it's needed. In other cases that's because I don't participate in the forum via email at all, so I don't want to receive any messages in that forum via email. I understand and respect the fact that other people, due to using a mail client that does not allow filtering based on hidden headers, because they are only subscribed to a couple of mailing lists, or for whatever other reason, do not appreciate the extra copy. The problem is that I cannot tell them apart. Why do you need to tell those classes of people apart? Why is being unable to tell them apart a problem? Since the default for all non-mailing list communication should be reply to all (after all, if someone decided to CC a third party on a conversation they started with you, it's a bit impolite to cut said third party off from the reply) I object to this idea quite strongly. The “forgot to include someone” mistake you identify is easily rectified after the message is sent; the “included someone whom I didn't intend” is impossible to rectify after the fact. For that reason among others, “reply to all” should not be the default but should be a deliberate decision in each instance. The solution I propose is already implemented in mailing list software such as mailman. In it, there is a per-user settable flag called avoid duplicates. I'm not a “user” recognised by the mailing list servers of many of the forums in which I participate, so your proposal is not a solution for my case. I know I'm not the only one who participates in Debian (and other) mailing lists as non-email forums. -- \ “What is needed is not the will to believe but the will to find | `\ out, which is the exact opposite.” —Bertrand Russell, _Free | _o__) Thought and Official Propaganda_, 1928 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8762rn4k4w@benfinney.id.au
Re: oops I sent a courtesy copy in violation of the code of conduct
On 12/03/11 05:14, jida...@jidanni.org wrote: Therefore perhaps http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct could be amended to mention that adding a Mail-Followup-To header might add an additional wall of defense for those who wish to cut down even further the possibility they might receive a courtesy copy from the less technically adept. Personally, I think the code of conduct should be amended, along with the list software. So far, my research shows that the difference between people (like myself) who prefer to get the two copies and people who don't does not depend on level of technical knowledge, but specifics of method of reading the lists. I am subscribed to lots and lots of mailing lists. All mail from those lists gets automatically delivered to dedicated folders automatically. This means I'm highly likely to miss a reply to my own emails to the list unless I get another, direct, copy (which doesn't have the list hidden headers, and therefor stays in my inbox). I *like* to get two copies, as it increases the chance that I actually get to see the replies to my own emails. I understand and respect the fact that other people, due to using a mail client that does not allow filtering based on hidden headers, because they are only subscribed to a couple of mailing lists, or for whatever other reason, do not appreciate the extra copy. The problem is that I cannot tell them apart. Since the default for all non-mailing list communication should be reply to all (after all, if someone decided to CC a third party on a conversation they started with you, it's a bit impolite to cut said third party off from the reply), I think the current internet trend to treat the use of reply to all as a mistake is misguided. The solution I propose is already implemented in mailing list software such as mailman. In it, there is a per-user settable flag called avoid duplicates. If it is set, if the mailing list detects that a CC or To recipient is also a mailing list subscriber, that subscriber does not get mailed a copy of the mail. This allows everyone to always hit 'reply to all', and have those who wish to receive an extra copy get it, and those who do not (such as most other subscribers to this list) not. I should point out that several mailing lists I'm subscribed to where this topic was a constant cause of bickering among the mailing participants switched to mailman, and the result was quiet on the 'reply to all' front for several years now. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd. http://www.lingnu.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d7aea4c.2060...@debian.org
