Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Sorry, for the late reply but found the message in the Spamfolder... Am 2009-04-29 10:35:08, schrieb Giacomo A. Catenazzi: But you fail also on pragmatic level: a lot of discussions are stopped because of lack of CC: Take debian-legal. How a non-subscriber can follow discussion? How he can reply to a message (with correct headers? A copy-paste is far worse) I think you can answer right, now remove your debian hat and retry! The solution would be if the list generate a Message-ID/Sender Database and then add automaticaly the previously user user to a reply if he/she is not subscribed to the list or in the whitel...@l.d.o. Note: I am not subsctibed ith THIS E-Mail because I receive THIS E-Mail on my cell-phone and I REALY dislike to be CC'ed because it cost me very much money. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # http://www.tamay-dogan.net/ Michelle Konzack http://www.can4linux.org/ Apt. 917 http://www.flexray4linux.org/ 50, rue de Soultz Jabber linux4miche...@jabber.ccc.de 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) Tel. DE: +49 177 9351947 ICQ #328449886Tel. FR: +33 6 61925193 signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: You're arguing that a Reply-To header is harmful (not that I am convinced) That field is very useful. What's harmful is mailing-list software munging that field, which is for the author to set and for nothing else to fiddle with. Yup. Reply-To is for the _original sender's_ use! If mailing list software were to start setting Reply-To, what is it supposed to do if it gets a message with Reply-To already set (by the original sender)? It could (1) overwrite the original Reply-To header, breaking personal replies to the sender, or it could (2) refrain from setting Reply-To for such messages, completely confusing the readers who have become accustomed to depending on the mailing-list's setting. I think there's no perfect solution to the general problem, because there's too wide a variety of MUAs in use, which support different feature sets. But it's much better to get duplicate messages in some cases than to break things in a way that leads to _lost_ messages. My experience is that in practice, it's not such a huge problem anyway; a combination of MUA list-followup commands + Mail-Followup-To: headers + MUA duplicate suppression seems to keep duplicates in check reasonably well... -Miles -- If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. [George Carlin] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
I demand that Noah Slater may or may not have written... [snip; in reply to Brett Parker] Considering that we're discussing on a mailing list, it's reasonable to assume that the common case is replying to the list. Why optimise for, what is surely by definition, the uncommon case? Why *break* the uncommon case by adding/replacing (abusing) Reply-To? Anyway, reply-to-list is a followup function (or, at least, it is such in all news/mail software which I've used with mailing lists). [snip] -- | Darren Salt| linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon | RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army | + RIPA NOTICE: NO CONSENT GIVEN FOR INTERCEPTION OF MESSAGE TRANSMISSION He taught us drawing, stretching, and fainting in coils. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 15:12 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be writes: If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list: If I select Reply: To=mailing-list CC= If I select Reply to all: To=mailing-list CC=Previous email's recipient. If the sender of the previous mail was NOT subscribed to the list. If I select Reply: To=sender,mailing-list CC= If I select Reply to all: To=sender,mailing-list CC=Previous email's recipient. = Do you agree with this? Can we forward it to list-masters? Gnus has two reply functions, which it calls reply and follow-up using the old Usenet definitions. [..] Note the capacity for private reply. Any system that doesn't allow for a private reply to the sender is unacceptably broken in my opinion. The whole m-l / CoC problem comes from the assumption that all MUAs have advanced features, that are properly configured, and end-user have good understanding of what to do. If we can't achieve a reasonable behavior using Joe User's two-buttons-MUA, then it's guaranteed that this discussion will come over again and again. Note that at the moment, my MUA (Evolution) has three buttons. None behave correctly for mailing lists: Reply = Reply to sender only Reply to all = reply to all previous sender and recipients Reply to list = Reply to list only, dropping non-subscribed sender. Any improved proposal ? or Do we have to change the policy? Regards, Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 09:20 +1000, Brian May wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:54:07PM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote: If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list: If I select Reply: To=mailing-list CC= What if you are replying to a response to somebody who is not subscribed to the list? in my mail, sender meant the sender of the previous mail. The emailer you are responding to may not want to be CCed, but the initial person may want to get the CCs. In case this is not clear, A: initial message from somebody not subscribed B: response to A somebody who is subscribed. You want to respond to B, so sender(A) needs a CC but sender(B) doesn't. I don't think this is uncommon. You are right, the cascading should be handled too (It would be much more effective if it was tracked by a tool, rather than by humans, as it is currently). I would be interesting to analyse how often people asked to be CC'ed, but are dropped after just one or two replies. Regards, Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be writes: The whole m-l / CoC problem comes from the assumption that all MUAs have advanced features, that are properly configured, and end-user have good understanding of what to do. If we can't achieve a reasonable behavior using Joe User's two-buttons-MUA, then it's guaranteed that this discussion will come over again and again. I agree. Being able to send private replies is part of reasonable behavior. A system that makes private replies difficult is not reasonable, IMO. Note that at the moment, my MUA (Evolution) has three buttons. None behave correctly for mailing lists: Reply = Reply to sender only Reply to all = reply to all previous sender and recipients Reply to list = Reply to list only, dropping non-subscribed sender. Any improved proposal ? or Do we have to change the policy? Personally, I'm fine with giving up on the no-cc policy. Just about every other technical mailing list that I read tends to accumulate cc's until someone gets around to removing them, and mostly people just deal with a bit of grumbling. I think it's fine to encourage people to trim useless cc's when they know the person to whom they're replying is on the list, but in terms of the available options and what we can make people's clients do by default, I think getting an extra copy of mail occasionally is the least bad outcome. Currently, I think we go through too much emotional effort towards getting people to get rid of the cc's, with neither a lot of productive outcome nor a lot of potential for long-term improvement. I bet we could do as well on elimination of cc's with a request (rather than a policy) and some pointers to configuration for common MUAs. In my opinion, an occasional extra copy is significantly superior to making private replies difficult or impossible or dropping the copy of the message that contains the List-* headers. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Wed,29.Apr.09, 10:22:50, Brian May wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:19:04AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: How Mutt is able to detect all mailing lists? The fields in the headers only allow to detect the current mailing list. You can define what are mailing lists using the lists and subcribe config options. This does not help for the cross-posting case and I also found the lists and subscribe options to be useless. Mutt works just fine as long as you use 'L' to reply on mailing lists. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On 2009-04-29 07:46 (+0200), Adeodato Simó wrote: + Frank Lin PIAT (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:54:07 +0200): If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list: If the sender of the previous mail was NOT subscribed to the list. And how does one (or their MUA) know which of these is the case? Yes, nobody knows (nor cares to spend time to find out) who are subscribed and who are not. People join and leave all the time. People read mailing lists different ways: some receive email as a subscriber, some read the list through a mail to news gateway (like Gmane[1]), some join to a discussion through an email-based bug tracker or web-based mailing-list archive. Sometimes mails are cross-posted to several lists. My opinion is that reply to all is the only way to manage different situations reliably and without endless discussion and hassle about the MUA configuration, email standards, Reply-Tos, Mail-Followup-Tos etc. While I think the CoC in Debian lists is broken I don't have problems obeying it myself and configuring my MUA to handle it easily. --- 1. http://gmane.org/ http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.general -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be writes: Note that at the moment, my MUA (Evolution) has three buttons. None behave correctly for mailing lists: Reply = Reply to sender only Reply to all = reply to all previous sender and recipients Reply to list = Reply to list only, dropping non-subscribed sender. Those sound correct. If someone writes a message to a list, but doesn't arrange to read messages from that list, I don't think we can expect software to automatically figure out that they would nevertheless like to receive those messages. Either the sender needs to arrange to get those messages themselves (by subscribing to the list), or they will need to rely on people manually doing what the mailing list could do for them (sending replies individually to them). -- \ “There is more to life than increasing its speed.” —Mahatma | `\Gandhi | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Ben Finney wrote: Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be writes: Note that at the moment, my MUA (Evolution) has three buttons. None behave correctly for mailing lists: Reply = Reply to sender only Reply to all = reply to all previous sender and recipients Reply to list = Reply to list only, dropping non-subscribed sender. Those sound correct. If someone writes a message to a list, but doesn't arrange to read messages from that list, I don't think we can expect software to automatically figure out that they would nevertheless like to receive those messages. you are going too far away. The rationale was: lkml is a high traffic so CC: policy is good; but we Debian doesn't have this large traffic mailing list. Your comment fails on lkml (and large lists), where: - nobody can read all mails - sometime it is necessary to point mail to people (it is normal to add CC to relevant people, take as example: a bug in a keyboard driver, which after few tests it is discovered to be a scheduler problem: a scheduler developer would probably skip the thread (because of subject) if it was not included also on CC. So your comment is to generic to be true. So add a On Debian clause, but then... not all of our users are used on Debian things (upstream for example, newbies, press, wannabe debian user, ...). But you fail also on pragmatic level: a lot of discussions are stopped because of lack of CC: Take debian-legal. How a non-subscriber can follow discussion? How he can reply to a message (with correct headers? A copy-paste is far worse) I think you can answer right, now remove your debian hat and retry! From old gnu maintainer guide: it is far better to have more mails about problems (but not useful) than not knowing that there is a problem. So people!!! take into account our users! not only the super debianer (developers, supporter, maintainer, ...) ciao cate Either the sender needs to arrange to get those messages themselves (by subscribing to the list), or they will need to rely on people manually doing what the mailing list could do for them (sending replies individually to them). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes: Ben Finney wrote: If someone writes a message to a list, but doesn't arrange to read messages from that list, I don't think we can expect software to automatically figure out that they would nevertheless like to receive those messages. […] But you fail also on pragmatic level: a lot of discussions are stopped because of lack of CC: Take debian-legal. How a non-subscriber can follow discussion? How he can reply to a message (with correct headers? […] That's covered by the part you also quoted: Either the sender needs to arrange to get those messages themselves (by subscribing to the list), or they will need to rely on people manually doing what the mailing list could do for them (sending replies individually to them). My point is we can't expect this case to be automatically detected. If people can't use the automatic means for following a discussion (and, you rightly point out, sometimes that's not a feasible option), they must then rely on manual means. -- \ “Please leave your values at the front desk.” —hotel, Paris | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:11:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Personally, I'm fine with giving up on the no-cc policy. Just about every other technical mailing list that I read tends to accumulate cc's until someone gets around to removing them, and mostly people just deal with a bit of grumbling. I think it's fine to encourage people to trim useless cc's when they know the person to whom they're replying is on the list, but in terms of the available options and what we can make people's clients do by default, I think getting an extra copy of mail occasionally is the least bad outcome. Currently, I think we go through too much emotional effort towards getting people to get rid of the cc's, with neither a lot of productive outcome nor a lot of potential for long-term improvement. I bet we could do as well on elimination of cc's with a request (rather than a policy) and some pointers to configuration for common MUAs. +1 -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
I demand that Ben Finney may or may not have written... [snip] If someone writes a message to a list, but doesn't arrange to read messages from that list, I don't think we can expect software to automatically figure out that they would nevertheless like to receive those messages. We certainly can't expect MUAs to do so. The list management software, OTOH, can (up to a point) by adding a Mail-Followup-To header, if one is not already present, containing the list address and, if the sender is not subscribed, his address. Either the sender needs to arrange to get those messages themselves (by subscribing to the list), or they will need to rely on people manually doing what the mailing list could do for them (sending replies individually to them). It does still leave some people having to do that, but that's unavoidable. -- | Darren Salt| linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon | RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army | + Burn less waste. Use less packaging. Waste less. USE FEWER RESOURCES. To iterate is human; to recurse, divine. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Wed,29.Apr.09, 14:27:45, Darren Salt wrote: I demand that Ben Finney may or may not have written... [snip] If someone writes a message to a list, but doesn't arrange to read messages from that list, I don't think we can expect software to automatically figure out that they would nevertheless like to receive those messages. We certainly can't expect MUAs to do so. The list management software, OTOH, can (up to a point) by adding a Mail-Followup-To header, if one is not already present, containing the list address and, if the sender is not subscribed, his address. This could be very annoying for people reading the list via gmane, googlegroups or just the archives. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
+ Andrei Popescu (Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:56:29 +0300): On Wed,29.Apr.09, 14:27:45, Darren Salt wrote: The list management software, OTOH, can [add] a Mail-Followup-To header, if one is not already present, containing the list address and, if the sender is not subscribed, his address. This could be very annoying for people reading the list via gmane, googlegroups or just the archives. They can add a Mail-Followup-To themselves indicating they don't wish for a copy, and that will be respected. Regarding Darren's proposal (see above), I had exactly the same idea myself, and thought of formally proposing it to listmaster. However, I don't feel inclined to defend it in front of those who will disagree, so I'll limit my pursuit to Bcc'ing this message to listmaster. One would have to investigate what's the actual behavior of different MUAs with respect the M-F-T header. And please, do not reply to this mail to say M-F-T makes baby Jesus cry or rapes babies or whatever. Cheers, -- - Are you sure we're good? - Always. -- Rory and Lorelai -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tuesday 28 April 2009 05:11:26 Russ Allbery wrote: Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes: As far as I see it: * Debian has dropped the Reply-To header because it is harmful in some way. * Debian has mandated that all replies must behave as if Reply-To existed. If this were the case, this would be an easy solution. However, it's not. Debian has mandated that all *public* replies must behave as if Reply-To existed, but all *private* replies behave as if it did not, and repliers must distinguish between the two. One very practical problem I personally have with all of this is that on certain/some/many other mailing lists it is expected that you reply to the poster *and* the mailing list, to be sure that the poster gets your reply in case he is not subscribed (and also, because some people can then find replies to their personal problems more easily among the load of other messages). And with the multitudes of communities I deal with, I do not have the time or concentration or infallibility to scan the emails for please cc me or please don't cc me notes or even reverse-engineer the mailing list's posting or subscription policy to make sure the message gets to who needs to read it. Considering that most mailing list software has an elimnatecc feature, this is never really a problem for people who don't want that sort of behavior. Another problem on the flip side is that many people don't observe the please cc me requests on Debian mailing lists, and that way communication gets annoying. So in practical terms, it is safer to add more recipients to the message to make sure it is received and noticed, and let computer software do the filtering if necessary. That is just my practical experience in trying to communicate with people. The policy is what it is, but I don't like it, because it *hinders* rather than *helps* me communicate effectively. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
OoO En cette fin de nuit blanche du mardi 28 avril 2009, vers 05:27, Brian May b...@snoopy.debian.net disait : I tried hard, for many years, to love the Mail-Followup-To field, but I must agree that it doesn't serve the purpose well enough to recommend. (Briefly: it breaks when a discussion crosses between different mailing lists, and other common use cases.) I don't think that is a problem with the field, but the MUA programs. Mutt, for example, AFAIK will list all mailing lists in the autogenerated Mail-Folloup-To, without allowing the user to change this (unless the user overrides the entire field) or pick only one mailing list. How Mutt is able to detect all mailing lists? The fields in the headers only allow to detect the current mailing list. -- BOFH excuse #419: Repeated reboots of the system failed to solve problem pgpZ6i9Utic39.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
William Pitcock neno...@sacredspiral.co.uk writes: On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 14:05 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: As it sadly happens many times every day. And as long as there are no means to enforce it (either pure social or aided by technology), it will continue to happen. Reply-To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org ? Weird. It's almost like you haven't read any of the reasons why that's a terrible idea, as already given in this thread (and countless times in the past). -- \ “Of all classes the rich are the most noticed and the least | `\ studied.” —John Kenneth Galbraith, _The Age of Uncertainty_, | _o__) 1977 | Ben Finney pgp1138Sblf4m.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
+ Mike Hommey (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:46:35 +0200): On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:53:12AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes: Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian lists, which as you can see, doesn't happen very often. No, the point of a ‘reply to list’ command is you *don't* have to remember when to use it. Just use it every time you reply to any list, and it will DTRT because it uses the standard fields which are in just about every mailing list anywhere. The times when it doesn't will be the rare ones. There are notorious counter examples, such as the git mailing list, that *do* require people to Cc the people they reply to, while the mailing list software doesn't add Reply-To. Oh, and actually they get very annoyed if you send your mail with a Mail-Followup-To header that prevents their group-reply function from adding you to the recipient list. -- - Are you sure we're good? - Always. -- Rory and Lorelai -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On 27 Apr 18:55, Noah Slater wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:48:50PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: I fully agree with this. I think having to remember which key one must use in each context for reply is lame. This is why I do in my ~/.muttrc: [...] Where l/debian is the folder which contains Debian lists, and it allows to always use 'r' to reply to mail. Hmm, interesting! Unfortunately, I don't use folders so I don't think this will work for me. *boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you don't use server side filtering and folders?! OK - now that's just plain odd. -- Brett Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On 28 Apr 03:58, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: Ben Finney a écrit : Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes: Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian lists, which as you can see, doesn't happen very often. No, the point of a ‘reply to list’ command is you *don't* have to remember when to use it. Just use it every time you reply to any list, and it will DTRT because it uses the standard fields which are in just about every mailing list anywhere. The times when it doesn't will be the rare ones. Why do these functions not do a normal Reply when not applied to a mail contained within a list? What do they do then? If they also do the right thing for a non-list mail, why are not they bound by default to be the main Reply button? That is a real question, btw, no irony implied. Because you don't always want to reply to the list. I rather like that Reply means reply to the person that wrote the e-mail rather than reply to the list, the list wants to know, really. -- Brett Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:46:01AM +0100, Brett Parker wrote: *boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you don't use server side filtering and folders?! OK - now that's just plain odd. Neither do I, does that make me odd too? By all means comment on how I or anyone elses uses lists, but you have no right to tell me how I should organise my own mailbox. -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Brett Parker idu...@sommitrealweird.co.uk writes: On 27 Apr 18:55, Noah Slater wrote: Unfortunately, I don't use folders so I don't think this will work for me. *boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you don't use server side filtering and folders?! OK - now that's just plain odd. Folders aren't the only way to manage lots of messages sanely; ask any Google Mail user. Since I wouldn't dream of recommending anyone use a proprietary data silo like Google Mail, I invite you instead to look at the ‘sup’ package for a folder-less approach to organising email messages that many say is superior. -- \ “What I have to do is see, at any rate, that I do not lend | `\ myself to the wrong which I condemn.” —Henry Thoreau, _Civil | _o__)Disobedience_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On 27 Apr 18:49, Noah Slater wrote: So, user error, not software error... This illustrates my point perfectly! It's not user error, because I'm just doing what I've learnt to do. Erm - how's that not user error? What you've learnt is obviously wrong. Relearn how to use your MUA efficiently. When software use becomes habitual, usability is increased. This is how usability is defined, instead of some abstract sense. Software that behaves according to a user's mental model is easy to use. Forcing people to adjust their behaviour is a poor substitute for a technical solution. Software should adapt to human behaviour, not the other way around. So, change your software configuration. The list software is doing the correct thing, the user agent is obviously your failing point here - so, either use a different MUA or configure your current MUA to do what you expect it to. BTW, MUAs are software too! *sigh*. -- Brett Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:56:59AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Another problem on the flip side is that many people don't observe the please cc me requests on Debian mailing lists, and that way communication gets annoying. So in practical terms, it is safer to add more recipients to the message to make sure it is received and noticed, and let computer software do the filtering if necessary. That is just my practical experience in trying to communicate with people. The policy is what it is, but I don't like it, because it *hinders* rather than *helps* me communicate effectively. +1 On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 02:00:05AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: Regardless, the start of this sub-thread was in violation of the CoC itself. If you need to complain to someone about Cc:'ing you, complain directly to them, not to the list. * If you want to complain to someone who sent you a carbon copy when you did not ask for it, do it privately. Yes, and this happens to me about once a month. Every time, I feel like an idiot for having forgot to observe the Code of Conduct. Like Peter Eisentraut points out, the current technical configuration and policy hinder my ability to communicate with others. Finally, if anyone has issues with how the lists are administrated or the CoC, mail listmas...@lists.debian.org; it doesn't really need to be discussed on -devel. [I won't comment further on -devel; mail listmaster@ if you actually have suggestions or problems.] I actually think some value has come out of this thread. Where I previously thought I was in the minority for being annoyed by the current technical configuration and policy, I have found there seems to be an even split of opinions both ways. Consensus building is valuable. On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:04:50AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: Anyway, the first rule of internet: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others, so people should accept wrong CC:s without crying, and people should follow the CoC when sending mails. I agree, but I wouldn't word it like this. If Debian wants to omit the Reply-To header then I think it must accept that people are going to, purposefully or otherwise, use the Reply To All feature of their MUAs. I don't actually have a preference about using the Reply-To header, because it doesn't affect how I interact with my MUA. What I object to is removing the Reply-To header and then complaining about the consequences of that action. On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:56:02AM +0100, Brett Parker wrote: On 27 Apr 18:49, Noah Slater wrote: It's not user error, because I'm just doing what I've learnt to do. Erm - how's that not user error? What you've learnt is obviously wrong. Relearn how to use your MUA efficiently. [...] So, change your software configuration. The list software is doing the correct thing, the user agent is obviously your failing point here - so, either use a different MUA or configure your current MUA to do what you expect it to. I think you're missing my entire point. Even if I do manage to figure out how to configure mutt to Reply To List for mailing list posts automatically, that's just one subscriber. The problem hasn't been solved. You still have to upgrade every single other subscriber's MUA in a similar fashion. It's a totally unrealistic goal, and so encoding it into the Code of Conduct seems wrong. On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:46:01AM +0100, Brett Parker wrote: *boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you don't use server side filtering and folders?! OK - now that's just plain odd. Like Ben Finney hinted at, I used to be a Google Mail user. I brought across a lot of things I learnt from using that interface. In case you're curious, I have a procmail system that filters all mailing list traffic into a temporary mailbox. I have a mutt macro that redelivers from that mailbox in batch when I am ready to process my mailing list traffic. It works well for me. On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:18:35AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Reply-to-list works with most of the major mailing list software. It still requires me to THINK about which key to press, which has already proven quite difficult. Even if I do train my fingers to hit the right key, which may take some time, there will always be others who have not. This will continue being a problem for the Debian lists until something changes. On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:31:38AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: That just about covers the most popular clients in Debian. If you are interested in more details just search the archives of debian-user, this comes up every few months ;) That this comes up so frequently should indicate something is wrong. I’m not subscribed to any list which set the Reply-To header. Could you at least show some examples of such lists in the free software world? I don't keep more than one weeks email on my server, but here is what I found: Reply-To: ascii...@googlegroups.com
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:04:50AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: Anyway, the first rule of internet: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others, so people should accept wrong CC:s without crying, and people should follow the CoC when sending mails. The main problem for people like me who subscribe to a lot of lists is that different groups have different requirements. Debian doesn't like CCs, others require them, others are indifferent. It's not easy to always do the correct thing--I don't want to remember all the list-specific requirements, just send a reply. We should really be using usenet rather than mailing lists... It solves all of the problems and is vastly superior. It's totally geared to group discussion, handles crossposting to related groups, and also allows mailing replies rather than public posting. Some groups (e.g. CUPS) handle this by having a public news server with an (optional) mail gateway for backward people who prefer mail. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:16:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 27 avril 2009 à 14:44 +0200, Michael Tautschnig a écrit : If you're annoyed by cc:s (well, Holger, I know you are, you told me about that more than once :-) ), configure your mailclient to set Mail-Followup-To and hope for the next poster's mailclient to support that header. Which actually means that, to a certain degree, those annoyed by cc:s could themselves do something about it. Mail-Followup-To is: A. Useless junk without clear semantics B. Violating standards C. Only supported by a handful of clients D. Obi-wan Kenobi says: “All of the above” http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt Perfectly well defined. It wasa draft and the fourth line: Expires: May 1998 November 1997 I don't think it is perfectly defined. Anyway, the first rule of internet: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others, so people should accept wrong CC:s without crying, and people should follow the CoC when sending mails. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Roger Leigh wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:04:50AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: Anyway, the first rule of internet: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others, so people should accept wrong CC:s without crying, and people should follow the CoC when sending mails. The main problem for people like me who subscribe to a lot of lists is that different groups have different requirements. Debian doesn't like CCs, others require them, others are indifferent. It's not easy to always do the correct thing--I don't want to remember all the list-specific requirements, just send a reply. Yes, this is the liberal in what you accept from others part, so allowing errors without boring people with scaring message. Unfortunately I don't think we can change the CoC, so we MUST better handle errors. I also prefer adding cc:s, and I really annoyed to some scary (and sometime wrong) messagges I get when do wrong replies. I don't understand why people lose time trying to point error to others, instead of just ignoring errors (someone as a script to point errors, instead of a simple user side discard of email). A lot of time we lose discussion; e.g. in debian-legal: a lot of DDs are not subscribed, so they see only half of discussion, especially when there are new post after some week of pause (e.g. after a private discussion to upstream). But I don't think it is feasible to change the CoC. We should really be using usenet rather than mailing lists... It solves all of the problems and is vastly superior. It's totally geared to group discussion, handles crossposting to related groups, and also allows mailing replies rather than public posting. Some groups (e.g. CUPS) handle this by having a public news server with an (optional) mail gateway for backward people who prefer mail. personally I've more difficulty on handling usenet post on different computer: synchronize read post at home, office and offline laptop. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
I demand that Ben Finney may or may not have written... [snip; M-F-T] RFC2822 (which define the semantics of ‘From’ and ‘Reply-To’) and RFC2369 (which defines the semantics of ‘List-Post’) are IETF-recommended standards; the other never achieved that. Given that it's seen some use and been found to provide some worthwhile benefit, that draft would seem to need to be revisited. Oh, and RFC5322 obsoletes RFC2822. :-) -- | Darren Salt| linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon | RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army | + Buy local produce. Try to walk or cycle. TRANSPORT CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING. Schedules are optimistic. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Peter Eisentraut pet...@debian.org writes: Considering that most mailing list software has an elimnatecc feature, this is never really a problem for people who don't want that sort of behavior. This feature is hideously broken for people (like myself) who split list mail into separate folders, since it suppresses exactly the copy that can be reasonably filed and leaves only the one that goes into one's personal inbox. I personally don't mind cc's or not cc's, but that suppress cc feature is just horrible. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:25:29AM -0700, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: Peter Eisentraut pet...@debian.org writes: Considering that most mailing list software has an elimnatecc feature, this is never really a problem for people who don't want that sort of behavior. This feature is hideously broken for people (like myself) who split list mail into separate folders, since it suppresses exactly the copy that can be reasonably filed and leaves only the one that goes into one's personal inbox. I personally don't mind cc's or not cc's, but that suppress cc feature is just horrible. OTOH, people annoyed with Cc's can setup filters on message-ids. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On 2009-04-28, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:25:29AM -0700, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: Peter Eisentraut pet...@debian.org writes: Considering that most mailing list software has an elimnatecc feature, this is never really a problem for people who don't want that sort of behavior. This feature is hideously broken for people (like myself) who split list mail into separate folders, since it suppresses exactly the copy that can be reasonably filed and leaves only the one that goes into one's personal inbox. I personally don't mind cc's or not cc's, but that suppress cc feature is just horrible. OTOH, people annoyed with Cc's can setup filters on message-ids. And then you mostly need to prefer the mail that comes last because it has the proper list headers. I have yet to see such a solution. (I.e. those filters work just fine but eliminate later mails and direct Cc:s are usually faster, unless greylisting is employed.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:12:22PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Brett Parker idu...@sommitrealweird.co.uk writes: On 27 Apr 18:55, Noah Slater wrote: Unfortunately, I don't use folders so I don't think this will work for me. *boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you don't use server side filtering and folders?! OK - now that's just plain odd. Folders aren't the only way to manage lots of messages sanely; ask any Google Mail user. Since I wouldn't dream of recommending anyone use a proprietary data silo like Google Mail, I invite you instead to look at the ‘sup’ package for a folder-less approach to organising email messages that many say is superior. Description: Software Upgrade Protocol implementation ? Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
+ Mike Hommey (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:52:36 +0200): Since I wouldn't dream of recommending anyone use a proprietary data silo like Google Mail, I invite you instead to look at the ‘sup’ package for a folder-less approach to organising email messages that many say is superior. Description: Software Upgrade Protocol implementation ? sup-mail is the chosen package name in Debian, given that sup was already taken. Cheers, -- - Are you sure we're good? - Always. -- Rory and Lorelai -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:52:36PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:12:22PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Folders aren't the only way to manage lots of messages sanely; ask any Google Mail user. Since I wouldn't dream of recommending anyone use a proprietary data silo like Google Mail, I invite you instead to look at the ‘sup’ package for a folder-less approach to organising email messages that many say is superior. Description: Software Upgrade Protocol implementation Package: sup-mail Description: thread-centric mailer with tagging and fast search Sup is a console-based email client for people with a lot of email. It supports tagging, very fast full-text search, automatic contact-list management, custom code insertion via a hook system, and more. If you're the type of person who treats email as an extension of your long-term memory, Sup is for you. -- James GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega james...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Mike Hommey a écrit : On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:12:22PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Brett Parker idu...@sommitrealweird.co.uk writes: On 27 Apr 18:55, Noah Slater wrote: Unfortunately, I don't use folders so I don't think this will work for me. *boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you don't use server side filtering and folders?! OK - now that's just plain odd. Folders aren't the only way to manage lots of messages sanely; ask any Google Mail user. Since I wouldn't dream of recommending anyone use a proprietary data silo like Google Mail, I invite you instead to look at the ‘sup’ package for a folder-less approach to organising email messages that many say is superior. Description: Software Upgrade Protocol implementation ? sup-mail - thread-centric mailer with tagging and fast search -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدقي http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~dogguy Tel.: (+33).1.44.27.28.38 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 03:13:41PM -0400, James Vega wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:52:36PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:12:22PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Folders aren't the only way to manage lots of messages sanely; ask any Google Mail user. Since I wouldn't dream of recommending anyone use a proprietary data silo like Google Mail, I invite you instead to look at the ‘sup’ package for a folder-less approach to organising email messages that many say is superior. Description: Software Upgrade Protocol implementation Package: sup-mail Description: thread-centric mailer with tagging and fast search Sup is a console-based email client for people with a lot of email. It supports tagging, very fast full-text search, automatic contact-list management, custom code insertion via a hook system, and more. If you're the type of person who treats email as an extension of your long-term memory, Sup is for you. Hmm, this looks very interesting! Thanks for tip Ben. Maybe sup will make it easier for me to reply to mailing lists properly! ;) -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Hello, On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 12:07 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no writes: I don't know, but there are plenty of reasons to choose from. See e.g. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html A stronger, and simpler, case is made by URL:http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful/ which notes that the newer IETF standards make it much clearer that the Reply-To field is specifically for the message sender to create. No matter how you implement that technically, Here's what I am considering to be a sensible behavior. [Blindly ignoring any CoC, RFC and any other current practice. BTW I am not a mailing-list guru/expert/addict, just observing what people do, on Debian m-l] If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list: If I select Reply: To=mailing-list CC= If I select Reply to all: To=mailing-list CC=Previous email's recipient. If the sender of the previous mail was NOT subscribed to the list. If I select Reply: To=sender,mailing-list CC= If I select Reply to all: To=sender,mailing-list CC=Previous email's recipient. = Do you agree with this? Can we forward it to list-masters? There are a few more things I am pretty sure: * Joe User should not be expected to know about mailing list, especially when he posts on debian-...@lists.debian.org and other user support mailing list (i.e asking to be CC'ed, not CC'ing people...). * Joe User should not be expected to know about Reply to list option. (Joe User only has 2 buttons: reply and reply to all) * Expecting any user to _configure_ it's MUA to have the expected behavior is the wrong way to achieve the goal. * Expecting the user to edit headers (Reply-To or Follow-up-to...) isn't reasonable, because most end-user MUA (Thunderbird, Evolution, Outlook, Lotus Notes) don't allow doing it easily. note: If you use debian-www (and probably a few other lists like debian-boot) then you are in big trouble when you need to reply to an @debian.org user... knowing if that user is subscribed is pure guess|luck. Less is more, or to put it another way: flame-sandbox Yes, I am a big fan of Gnome: i.e. Let's have less buttons that actually do what people expect./flame-sandbox Regards, Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Frank Lin PIAT fp...@klabs.be writes: If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list: If I select Reply: To=mailing-list CC= If I select Reply to all: To=mailing-list CC=Previous email's recipient. If the sender of the previous mail was NOT subscribed to the list. If I select Reply: To=sender,mailing-list CC= If I select Reply to all: To=sender,mailing-list CC=Previous email's recipient. = Do you agree with this? Can we forward it to list-masters? I either don't agree with this or think that you're leaving out a function that's important. Gnus has two reply functions, which it calls reply and follow-up using the old Usenet definitions. Its default behavior without any configuration is: Reply: To: sender Cc: Follow-Up: To: sender Cc: mailing-list Note the capacity for private reply. Any system that doesn't allow for a private reply to the sender is unacceptably broken in my opinion. If you configure Gnus with knowledge of the mailing list address, as I've done for all the Debian mailing lists, it will instead do: Follow-Up: To: mailing-list Cc: and there is a separate really wide reply function that will copy the sender anyway. It also honors Mail-Followup-To, for whatever that's worth. I don't really care what the default action is, but one of the standard reply options in any mail client should send a private reply to a public mailing list message. There are a few more things I am pretty sure: * Joe User should not be expected to know about Reply to list option. (Joe User only has 2 buttons: reply and reply to all) If this is the case, then your proposal above is unacceptable since it leaves Joe User without a way to reply privately. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:54:07PM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote: If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list: If I select Reply: To=mailing-list CC= What if you are replying to a response to somebody who is not subscribed to the list? The emailer you are responding to may not want to be CCed, but the initial person may want to get the CCs. In case this is not clear, A: initial message from somebody not subscribed B: response to A somebody who is subscribed. You want to respond to B, so sender(A) needs a CC but sender(B) doesn't. I don't think this is uncommon. By your logic no one would get the CC. -- Brian May b...@snoopy.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 02:34:11PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: personally I've more difficulty on handling usenet post on different computer: synchronize read post at home, office and offline laptop. Unfortunately, this has also put me off NNTP. I think this is a limitation in the client. I don't think there has been much work on improving NNTP clients, probably because everyone is addicted to mailing lists. I want a distributed way of synchronising the read post list. I can think of several approaches you could take, however it needs somebody who is willing to implement it (and ideally create a standard). (another problem with usenet is that last I looked there didn't seem to be any real servers in my country - Australia - everything has to be fetched from overseas servers - although it sometimes isn't always immediately obvious). -- Brian May b...@snoopy.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:19:04AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: How Mutt is able to detect all mailing lists? The fields in the headers only allow to detect the current mailing list. You can define what are mailing lists using the lists and subcribe config options. -- Brian May b...@snoopy.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
+ Frank Lin PIAT (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:54:07 +0200): If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list: [...] If the sender of the previous mail was NOT subscribed to the list. [...] And how does one (or their MUA) know which of these is the case? -- - Are you sure we're good? - Always. -- Rory and Lorelai -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 07:46 +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: + Frank Lin PIAT (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:54:07 +0200): If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list: [...] If the sender of the previous mail was NOT subscribed to the list. [...] And how does one (or their MUA) know which of these is the case? That's a technical problem. Reading the thread, I am pretty sure we have lots of m-l experts around. My quick assumption is that the mailing list should mangle some headers (because we shouldn't assume that the mail sender didn't configured it's MUA to customize some headers). Regards, Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
Hi, On Montag, 27. April 2009, Philipp Kern wrote: Interestingly you did it again, ignoring the list Code of Conduct. As it sadly happens many times every day. And as long as there are no means to enforce it (either pure social or aided by technology), it will continue to happen. regards, Holger, who tries to mentally ignore being annoyed by cc:s but fails on this way to often... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:05:37PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, On Montag, 27. April 2009, Philipp Kern wrote: Interestingly you did it again, ignoring the list Code of Conduct. As it sadly happens many times every day. And as long as there are no means to enforce it (either pure social or aided by technology), it will continue to happen. I think it's a broken requirement. I am aware that it exists, and when I remember it, I try to follow it. However, there are some major problems: * The Debian lists are the only lists I have ever come across that mandate, or even care, about such a thing. I have been on many lists in my time, and my current list of mailing list subscriptions stands at 73. On every single other list, this isn't a problem, and things just work. * I don't know much about mailing list software, so I'm not going to be as bold as to suggest I know what the solution is. However, on all the other lists, I never get duplicate copies of email when people reply to me with an unnecessary CC. Perhaps they are intelligently filtering out recipients from the mailing list software? * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, meaning that by default my email client wants to send replies to individual posters. To get the mailing list included in the reply means that I have to reply to all. It's a very easy mistake to make, not to remember to manually shuffle these addresses around each time I want to send a follow up. Don't make me think! Best, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
Hi Dne Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:39:15 +0100 Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org napsal(a): * The Debian lists are the only lists I have ever come across that mandate, or even care, about such a thing. I have been on many lists in my time, and my current list of mailing list subscriptions stands at 73. On every single other list, this isn't a problem, and things just work. Definitely not the only one which mandates this. * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, meaning that by default my email client wants to send replies to individual posters. To get the mailing list included in the reply means that I have to reply to all. It's a very easy mistake to make, not to remember to manually shuffle these addresses around each time I want to send a follow up. Don't make me think! See http://wiki.mutt.org/?MuttLists, part Lists' technical. (Most email clients do have this feature, Mutt was chosen because of User-Agent field in your email.) -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
Hi, On Montag, 27. April 2009, Philipp Kern wrote: Interestingly you did it again, ignoring the list Code of Conduct. As it sadly happens many times every day. And as long as there are no means to enforce it (either pure social or aided by technology), it will continue to happen. regards, Holger, who tries to mentally ignore being annoyed by cc:s but fails on this way to often... If you're annoyed by cc:s (well, Holger, I know you are, you told me about that more than once :-) ), configure your mailclient to set Mail-Followup-To and hope for the next poster's mailclient to support that header. Which actually means that, to a certain degree, those annoyed by cc:s could themselves do something about it. Best, Michael pgpZGOIZ69YuQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:39:15PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote: * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, meaning that by default my email client wants to send replies to individual posters. To get the mailing list included in the reply means that I have to reply to all. It's a very easy mistake to make, not to remember to manually shuffle these addresses around each time I want to send a follow up. Don't make me think! I don't mean to continue the argument, but I see that you are using Mutt. If that is the case, I am certain that it would not take you too much effort to use list-reply (`L', by default). I ask you to do this not because you don't follow list protocol, but you make it difficult for others as to follow it; for example, by default, when I chose to reply, this mail went to the list and was CC'ed to Holger, because of the strange way the headers came from your mail! Do you use the lists and subscribe keywords for this list in your muttrc? Thanks. Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
Dear lazylist, On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote: * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, does someone know why? regards, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 03:03:10PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote: * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, does someone know why? http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote: * The Debian lists are the only lists I have ever come across that mandate, or even care, about such a thing. I have been on many lists in my time, and my current list of mailing list subscriptions stands at 73. On every single other list, this isn't a problem, and things just work. Definitely not the only one which mandates this. I was careful to specify that in my experience, it was the only one I have come across to mandate this. I am sure that there are other lists with a similar policy. My point was that it is uncommon, and hence something I actually have to remember. In a way, it gets in the way of me sending email because it's trying to enforce a technical change via social means, which seems doomed to failure. On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:51:01AM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote: I don't mean to continue the argument, but I see that you are using Mutt. If that is the case, I am certain that it would not take you too much effort to use list-reply (`L', by default). I ask you to do this not because you don't follow list protocol, but you make it difficult for others as to follow it; for example, by default, when I chose to reply, this mail went to the list and was CC'ed to Holger, because of the strange way the headers came from your mail! Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian lists, which as you can see, doesn't happen very often. In my last email, I made a subtle reference to the following book: The book's premise is that a good program or web site should let users accomplish their intended tasks as easily and directly as possible. Krug points out that people are good at satisficing, or taking the first available solution to their problem, so design should take advantage of this. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Make_Me_Think If we find something that works, we stick to it. Once we find something that works—no matter how badly—we tend not to look for a better way. We’ll use a better way if we stumble across one, but we seldom look for one. - http://www.sensible.com/chapter.html Anyway, this is my way of saying that a thousand previous mailing list responses have taught me to send group replies. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. The Debian lists try to force me into thinking about the type of reply I should send, and inevitably fails more often than not. It doesn't fail because I'm stupid. I understand the theory behind it, and will apologise when people politely remind me. Instead, it fails because I'm human, lazy, and error prone. And it seems I'm not the only one. Best, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org writes: On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote: * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, does someone know why? I don't know, but there are plenty of reasons to choose from. See e.g. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Those not wanting redundant CCs should also read http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html Bjørn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:06:01PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 03:03:10PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote: * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, does someone know why? http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html From that page: Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer. People want to munge Reply-To headers to make reply back to the list easy. But it already is easy. Reasonable mail programs have two separate reply commands: one that replies directly to the author of a message, and another that replies to the author plus all of the list recipients. Even the lowly Berkeley Mail command has had this for about a decade. Any reasonable, modern mailer provides this feature. I prefer the Elm mailer. It has separate r)eply and g)roup-reply commands. If I want to reply to the author of a message, I strike the r key. If I want to send a reply to the entire list, I hit g instead. Piece 'o cake. If you include the Reply-To header, then responses go back to the list with no duplicated carbon copies. This page is recommending that this isn't necessary because all good mail clients have a group reply option. But Debian forbids the group reply function because this ends up adding unnecessary carbon copies. So it seems you cannot have your cake and eat it! Either you avoid Reply-To because it is harmful and accept that you will get carbon copies from the commonly implemented group reply function of modern mail clients, or you include the harmful Reply-To header and avoid it. What am I missing? This seems too obviously flawed an argument. Best, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote: Definitely not the only one which mandates this. Please list others so I can mock them. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes: * I don't know much about mailing list software, so I'm not going to be as bold as to suggest I know what the solution is. However, on all the other lists, I never get duplicate copies of email when people reply to me with an unnecessary CC. Perhaps they are intelligently filtering out recipients from the mailing list software? Don't know about the Debian list server, but mailman for example can be set to not send a list posting to someone who is already in To: or Cc:. But, I don't like that because I have my mail sorted by List-Id and mails sent directly to me obviously don't have that header. Also, for example cyrus can filter out duplicate mail. But, since the direct mail is usually faster than the one going through the list server, this results in the same problem as above. That's why I like the way Debian lists are setup and the CoC. * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, meaning that by default my email client wants to send replies to individual posters. To get the mailing list included in the reply means that I have to reply to all. It's a very easy mistake to make, not to remember to manually shuffle these addresses around each time I want to send a follow up. Don't make me think! Doesn't mutt have a reply-to-list functionality? Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
Hi Dne Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:33:06 + Clint Adams sch...@debian.org napsal(a): On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote: Definitely not the only one which mandates this. Please list others so I can mock them. For example Mutt lists I mentioned. I saw the same rule in Frugalware and Ubuntu does not mandate this, but they tell you to use Reply To List function. -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
Le lundi 27 avril 2009 à 14:44 +0200, Michael Tautschnig a écrit : If you're annoyed by cc:s (well, Holger, I know you are, you told me about that more than once :-) ), configure your mailclient to set Mail-Followup-To and hope for the next poster's mailclient to support that header. Which actually means that, to a certain degree, those annoyed by cc:s could themselves do something about it. Mail-Followup-To is: A. Useless junk without clear semantics B. Violating standards C. Only supported by a handful of clients D. Obi-wan Kenobi says: “All of the above” -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Noah Slater wrote: Either you avoid Reply-To because it is harmful and accept that you will get carbon copies from the commonly implemented group reply function of modern mail clients, or you include the harmful Reply-To header and avoid it. What am I missing? This seems too obviously flawed an argument. Either you add it, which is harmful, or you don't, and people should use reply to the list when replying to the list. Most (or many) MUAs have a trivial way to do that, as you already know. So instead of 'replying to all', just 'reply to the list'. Not too complicated, and you could start to do that with other lists too. So not flawed IMHO. Cheers, Emilio signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:19:08PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: Noah Slater wrote: Either you avoid Reply-To because it is harmful and accept that you will get carbon copies from the commonly implemented group reply function of modern mail clients, or you include the harmful Reply-To header and avoid it. What am I missing? This seems too obviously flawed an argument. Either you add it, which is harmful, or you don't, and people should use reply to the list when replying to the list. Most (or many) MUAs have a trivial way to do that, as you already know. So instead of 'replying to all', just 'reply to the list'. Not too complicated, and you could start to do that with other lists too. How many MUAs actually have a Reply To List feature? Gmail and most of the other online Web mail clients do not have this feature. Microsoft Outlook doesn't, nor does Thunderbird by default. So based on this alone, the Debian CoC is depending on an uncommon feature for proper behaviour. Even if this was a common feature of MUAs, it presents a significant usability barrier. Most people struggle to use Reply and Reply To All properly, without the additional cognitive burden of having to remember when they are specifically replying to a mailing list. You're arguing that a Reply-To header is harmful (not that I am convinced) and so people should learn to use some additional, uncommonly found, feature of their MUAs to work around the technological problem. I don't buy this argument at all. Technology should adapt to human behaviour, and not the other way around. There is something fundamentally wrong when we try to solve a technical problem with a Code of Conduct. Without a Reply-To header, we should expect people to Reply To Group. It doesn't matter if we have a Code of Conduct, people will always make mistakes. The only sensible thing to do in this situation would be to recommend that people who care properly configure their Mail-Followup-To and Mail-Reply-To headers. If Reply To Group is so harmful that we want to avoid it completely, then I think we should consider adding a Reply-To header to the mailing list emails - like many other mailing lists do for exactly this reason. P.S. I had to manually edit the To and CC headers of this email before sending out because I had forgot to press the L key in mutt, one of the few clients that actually has such a feature. Best, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: Mail-Followup-To is: A. Useless junk without clear semantics B. Violating standards Which standards would that be? Bjørn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On 27 Apr 15:41, Noah Slater wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:19:08PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: Noah Slater wrote: Either you avoid Reply-To because it is harmful and accept that you will get carbon copies from the commonly implemented group reply function of modern mail clients, or you include the harmful Reply-To header and avoid it. What am I missing? This seems too obviously flawed an argument. Either you add it, which is harmful, or you don't, and people should use reply to the list when replying to the list. Most (or many) MUAs have a trivial way to do that, as you already know. So instead of 'replying to all', just 'reply to the list'. Not too complicated, and you could start to do that with other lists too. How many MUAs actually have a Reply To List feature? Gmail and most of the other online Web mail clients do not have this feature. Microsoft Outlook doesn't, nor does Thunderbird by default. So based on this alone, the Debian CoC is depending on an uncommon feature for proper behaviour. Even if this was a common feature of MUAs, it presents a significant usability barrier. Most people struggle to use Reply and Reply To All properly, without the additional cognitive burden of having to remember when they are specifically replying to a mailing list. You're arguing that a Reply-To header is harmful (not that I am convinced) and Think of the occasions when you actually do want to do an offlist reply - it's not that uncommon - having Reply-To set to default to the list causes a lot of people to get it wrong because they're used to sensible mailing lists that get it right - this happens quite often on one of the mailing lists I'm subscribed to. so people should learn to use some additional, uncommonly found, feature of their MUAs to work around the technological problem. I don't buy this argument at all. Technology should adapt to human behaviour, and not the other way around. There is something fundamentally wrong when we try to solve a technical problem with a Code of Conduct. It's not a technical problem, it's a social problem. Technical solutions to social problems are always wrong. Without a Reply-To header, we should expect people to Reply To Group. It doesn't matter if we have a Code of Conduct, people will always make mistakes. The only sensible thing to do in this situation would be to recommend that people who care properly configure their Mail-Followup-To and Mail-Reply-To headers. I wouldn't expect that. I'd expect that if they usually reply to the list they would configure their MUA to reply to the list. If Reply To Group is so harmful that we want to avoid it completely, then I think we should consider adding a Reply-To header to the mailing list emails - like many other mailing lists do for exactly this reason. Many many more don't add the Reply-To header as it is harmful. P.S. I had to manually edit the To and CC headers of this email before sending out because I had forgot to press the L key in mutt, one of the few clients that actually has such a feature. So, user error, not software error... -- Brett Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
+ Noah Slater (Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:10:17 +0100): Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian lists I fully agree with this. I think having to remember which key one must use in each context for reply is lame. This is why I do in my ~/.muttrc: folder-hook . bind index r reply folder-hook . bind pager r reply folder-hook . bind index L list-reply folder-hook . bind pager L list-reply folder-hook =l/debian bind index r list-reply folder-hook =l/debian bind pager r list-reply folder-hook =l/debian bind index L reply folder-hook =l/debian bind pager L reply Where l/debian is the folder which contains Debian lists, and it allows to always use 'r' to reply to mail. -- - Are you sure we're good? - Always. -- Rory and Lorelai -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:09:19PM +0100, Brett Parker wrote: On 27 Apr 15:41, Noah Slater wrote: You're arguing that a Reply-To header is harmful (not that I am convinced) and Think of the occasions when you actually do want to do an offlist reply - it's not that uncommon - having Reply-To set to default to the list causes a lot of people to get it wrong because they're used to sensible mailing lists that get it right - this happens quite often on one of the mailing lists I'm subscribed to. Considering that we're discussing on a mailing list, it's reasonable to assume that the common case is replying to the list. Why optimise for, what is surely by definition, the uncommon case? You're asserting that most people are used to sensible lists that don't set the Reply-To header. Unfortunately, without a survey to back up that claim I cannot believe it - based upon my own, extensive, experience. I realise that I am making a similar assertion. so people should learn to use some additional, uncommonly found, feature of their MUAs to work around the technological problem. I don't buy this argument at all. Technology should adapt to human behaviour, and not the other way around. There is something fundamentally wrong when we try to solve a technical problem with a Code of Conduct. It's not a technical problem, it's a social problem. Technical solutions to social problems are always wrong. How is it a social problem? That clearly doesn't make any sense. There is only one problem here. Debian doesn't want mailing list replies to include the original senders. That isn't a social problem, that's a technical problem. When people are replying to mailing list traffic, they hit the button they've learnt to hit. There's nothing more complex going on. When a Reply-To header is added by the mailing list software, a larger proportion of people's default software interaction works as desired. Without a Reply-To header, we should expect people to Reply To Group. It doesn't matter if we have a Code of Conduct, people will always make mistakes. The only sensible thing to do in this situation would be to recommend that people who care properly configure their Mail-Followup-To and Mail-Reply-To headers. I wouldn't expect that. I'd expect that if they usually reply to the list they would configure their MUA to reply to the list. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you clarify? If Reply To Group is so harmful that we want to avoid it completely, then I think we should consider adding a Reply-To header to the mailing list emails - like many other mailing lists do for exactly this reason. Many many more don't add the Reply-To header as it is harmful. Without evidence to back this up, we're both just making assertions. I just created a Google Group, with what must be the largest provider of hosted mailing lists currently in existence. The default setting appears to be the inclusion of a forced Reply-To header. Given Google's popularity, it seems reasonable to conclude that adding a Reply-To is more common. Additionally, I've not heard a convincing argument why Reply-To is harmful. It would solve the spurious CC replies, but at what specific cost? P.S. I had to manually edit the To and CC headers of this email before sending out because I had forgot to press the L key in mutt, one of the few clients that actually has such a feature. So, user error, not software error... This illustrates my point perfectly! It's not user error, because I'm just doing what I've learnt to do. When software use becomes habitual, usability is increased. This is how usability is defined, instead of some abstract sense. Software that behaves according to a user's mental model is easy to use. Forcing people to adjust their behaviour is a poor substitute for a technical solution. Software should adapt to human behaviour, not the other way around. Best, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:48:50PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: I fully agree with this. I think having to remember which key one must use in each context for reply is lame. This is why I do in my ~/.muttrc: [...] Where l/debian is the folder which contains Debian lists, and it allows to always use 'r' to reply to mail. Hmm, interesting! Unfortunately, I don't use folders so I don't think this will work for me. Thanks, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:16:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: C. Only supported by a handful of clients A number of clients won't automatically generate the header, but may still support it for group replies. I think this might include Evolution and Thunderbid (although it was a while since I tested this so I might be wrong) when doing a group reply. IIRC Thunderbird use to have a reply to list command, but I can't find it anymore :-(. -- Brian May b...@snoopy.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes: Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian lists, which as you can see, doesn't happen very often. No, the point of a ‘reply to list’ command is you *don't* have to remember when to use it. Just use it every time you reply to any list, and it will DTRT because it uses the standard fields which are in just about every mailing list anywhere. The times when it doesn't will be the rare ones. -- \“I was in the grocery store. I saw a sign that said ‘pet | `\ supplies’. So I did. Then I went outside and saw a sign that | _o__) said ‘compact cars’.” —Steven Wright | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org writes: Dear lazylist, On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote: * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, does someone know why? In brief: because that field is for the *sender* to set, if they want; and the mailing list software has no business touching it. URL:http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful -- \ “If you're a horse, and someone gets on you, and falls off, and | `\ then gets right back on you, I think you should buck him off | _o__)right away.” —Jack Handey | Ben Finney pgpjNxrVaN7hH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:53:12AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: No, the point of a ‘reply to list’ command is you *don't* have to remember when to use it. Just use it every time you reply to any list, and it will DTRT because it uses the standard fields which are in just about every mailing list anywhere. The times when it doesn't will be the rare ones. I appreciate the sentiment, but it's not going to happen. I am not saying anything like I will not obey the Code of Conduct because it is stupid but rather something like I will try my best, like I have been doing, but I know I will continue to fail. If my MUA was able to spot that I was replying to a list and do this automatically for me, that would be great. But what about every single other MUA out there? That's 66 MUAs according to Frank Lin PIAT. To quote Mark Pilgrim on a different topic entirely: I like how he focuses on the publisher’s end of the problem — “gee, all we have to do is define this permissions table, that sounds easy.” What he fails to mention is that every font-consuming application on every platform on every computer on Earth will need to be “upgraded” to “respect” this permissions table. Because otherwise they’re not really permissions, are they? They’re just useless bits taking valuable chunks out of my metered bandwidth plan. Like the bozo bit without the bozo. - http://diveintomark.org/archives/2009/04/21/fuck-the-foundries As far as I see it: * Debian has dropped the Reply-To header because it is harmful in some way. * Debian has mandated that all replies must behave as if Reply-To existed. * This breaks the vast majority of clients when replying to list emails. So yeah, I think this is a great solution. All we need to do now is make sure that every computer that participates on the Debian mailing lists is upgraded to respect this policy. Best, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes: You're arguing that a Reply-To header is harmful (not that I am convinced) That field is very useful. What's harmful is mailing-list software munging that field, which is for the author to set and for nothing else to fiddle with. -- \ “Saying that Java is nice because it works on all OSes is like | `\ saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders” | _o__)—http://bash.org/ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes: As far as I see it: * Debian has dropped the Reply-To header because it is harmful in some way. * Debian has mandated that all replies must behave as if Reply-To existed. If this were the case, this would be an easy solution. However, it's not. Debian has mandated that all *public* replies must behave as if Reply-To existed, but all *private* replies behave as if it did not, and repliers must distinguish between the two. Simplifications that drop that distinction will always miss the point. The primary problem with setting Reply-To is that it makes private replies extremely difficult (in clients that honor the RFC-defined meaning of the header field, at least) and significantly increases the chances that private replies will accidentally become public. I don't think that's the right social direction in which to go. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:11:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: The primary problem with setting Reply-To is that it makes private replies extremely difficult (in clients that honor the RFC-defined meaning of the header field, at least) and significantly increases the chances that private replies will accidentally become public. I don't think that's the right social direction in which to go. If this is such a concern, I would like to see the Code of Conduct updates to recommend that people concerned with follow up emails set the appropriate headers in their own clients. This was detailed earlier in this thread. -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: Le lundi 27 avril 2009 à 14:44 +0200, Michael Tautschnig a écrit : If you're annoyed by cc:s (well, Holger, I know you are, you told me about that more than once :-) ), configure your mailclient to set Mail-Followup-To Mail-Followup-To is: A. Useless junk without clear semantics B. Violating standards C. Only supported by a handful of clients D. Obi-wan Kenobi says: “All of the above” I tried hard, for many years, to love the Mail-Followup-To field, but I must agree that it doesn't serve the purpose well enough to recommend. (Briefly: it breaks when a discussion crosses between different mailing lists, and other common use cases.) -- \“Good morning, Pooh Bear”, said Eeyore gloomily. “If it is a | `\ good morning”, he said. “Which I doubt”, said he. —A. A. Milne, | _o__)_Winnie-the-Pooh_ | Ben Finney pgpIiz3YoQi3G.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no writes: I don't know, but there are plenty of reasons to choose from. See e.g. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html A stronger, and simpler, case is made by URL:http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful/ which notes that the newer IETF standards make it much clearer that the Reply-To field is specifically for the message sender to create. -- \“My doctor told me to stop having intimate dinners for four. | `\ Unless there are three other people.” —Orson Welles | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Ben Finney a écrit : Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes: Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian lists, which as you can see, doesn't happen very often. No, the point of a ‘reply to list’ command is you *don't* have to remember when to use it. Just use it every time you reply to any list, and it will DTRT because it uses the standard fields which are in just about every mailing list anywhere. The times when it doesn't will be the rare ones. Why do these functions not do a normal Reply when not applied to a mail contained within a list? What do they do then? If they also do the right thing for a non-list mail, why are not they bound by default to be the main Reply button? That is a real question, btw, no irony implied. -- JCD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:16:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 27 avril 2009 à 14:44 +0200, Michael Tautschnig a écrit : If you're annoyed by cc:s (well, Holger, I know you are, you told me about that more than once :-) ), configure your mailclient to set Mail-Followup-To and hope for the next poster's mailclient to support that header. Which actually means that, to a certain degree, those annoyed by cc:s could themselves do something about it. Mail-Followup-To is: A. Useless junk without clear semantics B. Violating standards C. Only supported by a handful of clients D. Obi-wan Kenobi says: “All of the above” http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt Perfectly well defined. People who object to Mail-Followup-To even though it precisely addresses this problem and would be perfectly suitable as a basis for standardization are: a) wankers b) obstructionists c) on Dick Cheney's payroll d) profit -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:35:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt Perfectly well defined. An interesting riposte for those arguing the opposite IETF angle. If adherence to standards is so important, surely it's a net win if we respect the intended semantics of Reply-To while simultaneously embracing the Mail-Followup-To header. I don't see how you could argue one, without the other. :) -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Brian May b...@snoopy.debian.net writes: IIRC Thunderbird use to have a reply to list command, but I can't find it anymore :-(. The bug has been open since 2000, and has recently seen activity again URL:https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45715. Meanwhile Debian's Thunderbird is apparently patched already to allow the feature to be implemented by an extension: URL:http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=381273 URL:http://alumnit.ca/wiki/index.php?page=ReplyToListThunderbirdExtension -- \ “There is more to life than increasing its speed.” —Mahatma | `\Gandhi | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes: I am not saying anything like I will not obey the Code of Conduct because it is stupid but rather something like I will try my best, like I have been doing, but I know I will continue to fail. Well, “like you have been doing” means *not* using it, even in this thread, so I find the above rather difficult to believe — especially because “I forgot” is even less plausible in the context of this thread where you've been explicitly reminded of it several times. I can only interpret this, then, as “no, I'll continue not respecting the CoC”. (good signmonster, have a cookie) -- \ “We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just | `\ stuff that works.” —Douglas Adams | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes: If this is such a concern, I would like to see the Code of Conduct updates to recommend that people concerned with follow up emails set the appropriate headers in their own clients. This was detailed earlier in this thread. The appropriate fields *are* set: the mailing list sets the RFC 2369 fields for replies to the list, and the author sets the From and (optionally) the Reply-To fields for replies to the sender. Is this so hard, people? We have large brains evolved in part precisely for the purpose of figuring out the protocols of communication and applying them moment to moment. If you don't want to decide in a given instance whether you want to respond publicly or privately, you're betraying your biological legacy. -- \ “I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me | `\as members.” —Groucho Marx | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Is this so hard, people? We have large brains evolved in part precisely for the purpose of figuring out the protocols of communication and applying them moment to moment. If you don't want to decide in a given instance whether you want to respond publicly or privately, you're betraying your biological legacy. We're too busy grooming bugs out of each other's packages. :) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes: On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:35:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt Perfectly well defined. An interesting riposte for those arguing the opposite IETF angle. Interesting in that that draft expired in 1998, and has never been recommended by the IETF. Those interested in seeing why not are welcome to trawl the discussion at the time; it's surely not of interest to raise them again here. I don't see how you could argue one, without the other. :) RFC2822 (which define the semantics of ‘From’ and ‘Reply-To’) and RFC2369 (which defines the semantics of ‘List-Post’) are IETF-recommended standards; the other never achieved that. -- \“I used to work in a fire hydrant factory. You couldn't park | `\ anywhere near the place.” —Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:10:14PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: I tried hard, for many years, to love the Mail-Followup-To field, but I must agree that it doesn't serve the purpose well enough to recommend. (Briefly: it breaks when a discussion crosses between different mailing lists, and other common use cases.) I don't think that is a problem with the field, but the MUA programs. Mutt, for example, AFAIK will list all mailing lists in the autogenerated Mail-Folloup-To, without allowing the user to change this (unless the user overrides the entire field) or pick only one mailing list. -- Brian May b...@snoopy.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:54:56PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Well, “like you have been doing” means *not* using it, even in this thread, so I find the above rather difficult to believe — especially because “I forgot” is even less plausible in the context of this thread where you've been explicitly reminded of it several times. I can only interpret this, then, as “no, I'll continue not respecting the CoC”. Listen, if you have a problem my specific conduct, take it off list. I genuinely find it hard to remember to MAKE AN EXCEPTION to my regular software interaction just because I am sending an email to a Debian list. That I continue to make this mistake in a thread discussing the very same problem should be an example of how problematic the whole thing is for me, and others like me. -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:59:53PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: The appropriate fields *are* set: the mailing list sets the RFC 2369 fields for replies to the list, and the author sets the From and (optionally) the Reply-To fields for replies to the sender. The appropriate fields are set, I never said they were not. Unfortunately, the problem is bigger than this: * It requires a MUA that understands these fields. * It requires a user to change their software interaction habits. Both of these requirements have proven, empirically, very difficult. Is this so hard, people? We have large brains evolved in part precisely for the purpose of figuring out the protocols of communication and applying them moment to moment. If you don't want to decide in a given instance whether you want to respond publicly or privately, you're betraying your biological legacy. Yes, it's very hard. This much should be obvious from the frequency with which it happens on the Debian mailing lists. As humans, we're prone to mistakes, laziness, and behaviour through repetition. I will say it again, because I don't think the message is getting through. Software should adapt to human behaviour, not the other way around. Arguing that people should adjust the way they use their software because it makes more sense that way is a poor excuse for bad engineering. This is why we write software, after all. To make things easier for humans, not machines. Best, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:53:12AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org writes: Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian lists, which as you can see, doesn't happen very often. No, the point of a ‘reply to list’ command is you *don't* have to remember when to use it. Just use it every time you reply to any list, and it will DTRT because it uses the standard fields which are in just about every mailing list anywhere. The times when it doesn't will be the rare ones. There are notorious counter examples, such as the git mailing list, that *do* require people to Cc the people they reply to, while the mailing list software doesn't add Reply-To. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 14:05 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, On Montag, 27. April 2009, Philipp Kern wrote: Interestingly you did it again, ignoring the list Code of Conduct. As it sadly happens many times every day. And as long as there are no means to enforce it (either pure social or aided by technology), it will continue to happen. Reply-To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org ? William signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
