Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I must admit that your solution is right. I suggested another way to do that, just by feeding the reply-to field to provide to the most the opportunity to handle the ML with a maximum of usability -simply by fixing the wrong reply addressee- and allowing the users to sort/filter/search/browse this huge amount of information with the tool they used to. But you -not you in particular, maybe you too, but folks that answered me previously- don't like that solution. I don't know why and I tried to discuss about it before but since there was no debate, I can just imagine that there are good reasons. The best On 02.04.07 01:09, Andrei Popescu wrote: One other thing is that Debian will not do go against the standards just because others do it. ...just because others are not able to follow them. Breaking this standard would do more harm to people who are able to follow it, than following of this standard does to people who are not. So, if we have to decide if to support people/MUAs following standards, or those not following them, the answer seems to be pretty clear to me. Gal: Just ask google to implement the list-reply button, it would no harm to you or them. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Linux - It's now safe to turn on your computer. Linux - Teraz mozete pocitac bez obav zapnut. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
2007/4/2, Matus UHLAR - fantomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gal: Just ask google to implement the list-reply button, it would no harm to you or them. I will ;) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
On Sun, 2007-04-01 at 15:46 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/01/07 14:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seth, I think you really understood my intentions. And still agree with all of your 6 points. As a personal view, I have the skills to set up a good MUA but this ML makes trouble for my day-to-day usage since I am using several machines, and I am neither root on all of them nor authorized to use bandwidth, ports and protocols the way I want. So, instead of being considered as a flammer by the whole readers, I just tried to point out the limits of this ML. Considering it as a community tools, with high usability for experienced as well as newbies, and not just as a personal problem. Nothing more. In the case of needing access from multiple systems, you should use the usenet gateway and a newsreader. nntp://linux.debian.user or http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.user nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.user I've been wondering for a while whether I can 'evolution' ii evolution 2.0.4-2sarge1 The groupware suite to read this mailing list (emails) more as a newsgroup to, eg, allow me to 'kill' a thread (rather than having to manually delete each email)... I tried setting up a new account and choosing USEnet news as the server type with each of the above as the configuration host but it just timed out or gave other errors (IIRC, it couldn't find/determine the domain). Anybody got Evolution to read this ML as a newsgroup? Michael PS: apols if I\ve got any terminology wrong -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matus UHLAR - fantomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is not about MTAs and SMTP here. This is about e-mail headers and MUAs. That's a large enough hurdle that I think it safe to say the horse has left the barn on this one a long time ago. Continuing to insist that things _should_ have been different, long past the point where that is feasible, only makes us look foolish. In that, we have been successful. This thread started with complaining about non-existent Reply-To: headers set by the list. Some people, including me, say that there are much better ways to solve the mailing list reply problem. Maybe you should read this thread again. Forgive me if I am missing something obvious, but I read this list as a newsgroup via gmane. This means I can use a 'proper' usenet news client, slrn in my case, which seems so much easier to use than any MUA I can think of. But YMMV of course. -- Bob Cox. Stoke Gifford, near Bristol, UK. Debian on NSLU2: http://slug.bobcox.com/ http://pippin.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 13:46:05 +0100 Bob Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Bob, Forgive me if I am missing something obvious, but I read this list as a newsgroup via gmane. This means I can use a 'proper' usenet news I believe that the Debian Users mailing list gets gated to usenet, where you're picking it up. I, in common with many others, am subbed to the ML, so an MUA is the more appropriate software to use for us. -- Regards _ / ) The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent You're a sidewalk cipher speaking prionic jive Give You Nothing - Bad Religion signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
Seth, I think you really understood my intentions. And still agree with all of your 6 points. As a personal view, I have the skills to set up a good MUA but this ML makes trouble for my day-to-day usage since I am using several machines, and I am neither root on all of them nor authorized to use bandwidth, ports and protocols the way I want. So, instead of being considered as a flammer by the whole readers, I just tried to point out the limits of this ML. Considering it as a community tools, with high usability for experienced as well as newbies, and not just as a personal problem. Nothing more. Unfortunately, I am new to this list, and don't know who is the boss on this playground, what can be written down or not. Because even if I read again my messages, I can't find the advise Accept it or leave really meaningful. Gal' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/01/07 14:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seth, I think you really understood my intentions. And still agree with all of your 6 points. As a personal view, I have the skills to set up a good MUA but this ML makes trouble for my day-to-day usage since I am using several machines, and I am neither root on all of them nor authorized to use bandwidth, ports and protocols the way I want. So, instead of being considered as a flammer by the whole readers, I just tried to point out the limits of this ML. Considering it as a community tools, with high usability for experienced as well as newbies, and not just as a personal problem. Nothing more. In the case of needing access from multiple systems, you should use the usenet gateway and a newsreader. nntp://linux.debian.user or http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.user nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.user Unfortunately, I am new to this list, and don't know who is the boss on this playground, what can be written down or not. Because even if I read again my messages, I can't find the advise Accept it or leave really meaningful. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGEBoXS9HxQb37XmcRAt0OAJ4+AIPPKhMSMyMfe1EDjO7Nry1bBwCgxp2/ cT4YY97Avc7eUt1q8Lp98Js= =tfkD -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
2007/4/1, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In the case of needing access from multiple systems, you should use the usenet gateway and a newsreader. nntp://linux.debian.user or http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.user nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.user I must admit that your solution is right. I suggested another way to do that, just by feeding the reply-to field to provide to the most the opportunity to handle the ML with a maximum of usability -simply by fixing the wrong reply addressee- and allowing the users to sort/filter/search/browse this huge amount of information with the tool they used to. But you -not you in particular, maybe you too, but folks that answered me previously- don't like that solution. I don't know why and I tried to discuss about it before but since there was no debate, I can just imagine that there are good reasons. The best solution still consists in using gmail and modifying manually the receiver due to the automated sort and search ability. Normally a unique webmail account should be very convenient to read/write e-mails from different computers that have web connection. Gal' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I must admit that your solution is right. I suggested another way to do that, just by feeding the reply-to field to provide to the most the opportunity to handle the ML with a maximum of usability -simply by fixing the wrong reply addressee- and allowing the users to sort/filter/search/browse this huge amount of information with the tool they used to. But you -not you in particular, maybe you too, but folks that answered me previously- don't like that solution. I don't know why and I tried to discuss about it before but since there was no debate, I can just imagine that there are good reasons. The best The reasons for not munging are explained in the reply-to-harmful link provided at least once in this thread. The reason the debate is avoided is because it has been discussed several times on this list with all possible arguments. By asking you show you haven't searched the archives/the web before posting. One other thing is that Debian will not do go against the standards just because others do it. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
Greg Folkert [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 15:09 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: [...] We, however, know that just because Joe User doesn't know any better, it doesn't mean that there is nothing better. Ayyaha, men, brother! \o/ \o/ \o/ I always akin it to: If all you ever have eaten all your life is dog-poo, how do you know any better? You get the drift? Do you mean that a cup of sugar and a feisty attitude won't turn it into a donut? Cybe R. Wizard -- Nice computers don't go down. Larry Niven, Steven Barnes The Barsoom Project -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote on Friday, March 30, 2007 3:31 PM -0500: The whole fact that majority of other mailing lists and their users does not know about this does not mean it's useless. On 30.03.07 16:33, Seth Goodman wrote: You mean it _could_ be useful if most others went along, which they haven't. I mean that it's bad that ONLY in debian lists it makes sense to reply to author, list and both, while for all other mailing lists it there's only one choice. There are a lot of things about normal SMTP practice that violate recent RFC's and I personally don't like. For something that doesn't affect mail transport, but is a matter of how MUA's interpret trace headers, most people feel they have bigger fish to fry. To fix this problem, you need to convince not only the makers of numerous MTA's to change, but the maintainers of mailing list packages and a large number of mailing list administrators. This is not about MTAs and SMTP here. This is about e-mail headers and MUAs. That's a large enough hurdle that I think it safe to say the horse has left the barn on this one a long time ago. Continuing to insist that things _should_ have been different, long past the point where that is feasible, only makes us look foolish. In that, we have been successful. This thread started with complaining about non-existent Reply-To: headers set by the list. Some people, including me, say that there are much better ways to solve the mailing list reply problem. Maybe you should read this thread again. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
2007/3/31, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Noobie stomps in, uses HTML mail (which you are *still* doing, and still breaking the Code Of Conduct) and tells us not to follow an internet standard, because no one else does it. That's not appreciated. Sorry for the previous html message, I though gmail used html only when messages contained extra formatting info, but it was not the case. Very sorry. Now it should be better... Gal' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/3/31, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Noobie stomps in, uses HTML mail (which you are *still* doing, and still breaking the Code Of Conduct) and tells us not to follow an internet standard, because no one else does it. That's not appreciated. Sorry for the previous html message, I though gmail used html only when messages contained extra formatting info, but it was not the case. Very sorry. Now it should be better... Gal' It is indeed. Welcome to the our club. You might consider sorting d-u to its own folder as the large volume of mails can be difficult to handle otherwise. If you ever start using gmail through pop/smtp search the archives for the issues that *will* arise. Unfortunately gmail's ways of handling mail are not very orthodox. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote on Saturday, March 31, 2007 6:03 AM -0500: On 30.03.07 16:33, Seth Goodman wrote: That's a large enough hurdle that I think it safe to say the horse has left the barn on this one a long time ago. Continuing to insist that things _should_ have been different, long past the point where that is feasible, only makes us look foolish. In that, we have been successful. This thread started with complaining about non-existent Reply-To: headers set by the list. Some people, including me, say that there are much better ways to solve the mailing list reply problem. Maybe you should read this thread again. I just did and I don't think I've misinterpreted it. The OP complained about the fact that when reading the d-u list in gmail, as in most other web mail interfaces and MUA's that don't have a reply-to-list function, the reply goes to the original author rather than the list. The suggestions made to the OP were to POP his mail and use an MUA that has reply-to-list, use IMAP and change to an MUA that has reply-to-list, or complain to gmail to get them to do it the debian way. The OP didn't find those suggestions helpful for the same reasons that most other people don't. To summarize them: 1) most people who ask this question are not asking about how to best set up a personal email system on their own server; they only care to read and respond to d-u list traffic, *in addition* to the lists they are currently reading; changing MUA's is a lot of work just to properly read one list; 2) most people are happy with their current MUA or web mail interface, even if people at d-u don't like their choices; since d-u is usually the only list they have encountered that works this way, it is a completely reasonable question to ask, and they don't deserve a public berating for asking; 3) many people find free web mail accounts very convenient, especially for non-critical mail like lists; I don't happen to be one of them, but I recognize the popularity of web mail and don't care to ignore that audience; 4) asking people to complain to gmail/yahoo/msn to implement reply-to-list functionality is an attempt to get them to take on somebody else's technical agenda, and that doesn't work; even if a couple of them did complain, no one is going to change for a few users from a few lists; 5) IMAP is not commonly available as a free service; it takes a fair amount of effort to set up yourself, and not all MUA's support it well; 6) others here pointed out that the d-u community sets its own rules: you either accept them or leave, and likened it to a private yacht club; if that's what d-u is about, then we're in trouble; my understanding was that this is a open community, not a private club full of snobs; we should not treat newcomers that way (or anyone else, for that matter); There's nothing wrong with offering POP + new MUA, IMAP + new MUA or even complain to gmail as alternatives. The problem is believing that a fourth possibility, that d-u operates its lists like the rest of the world, is off limits to discussion. -- Seth Goodman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
Is it possible to know why the reply-to field is not set to debian-user@lists.debian.org for each mail coming from the ML ? I am quite sure you have discussed it before, but I am relatively new to this ML. When you used not to take care about replying -it is the case in lots of ml, e.g. gentoo'- it is very disappointing to see your replies to be sent out to the last sender and not the whole list. Thks for your answer. Gal'
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it possible to know why the reply-to field is not set to debian-user@lists.debian.org mailto:debian-user@lists.debian.org for each mail coming from the ML ? I am quite sure you have discussed it before, but I am relatively new to this ML. When you used not to take care about replying -it is the case in lots of ml, e.g. gentoo'- it is very disappointing to see your replies to be sent out to the last sender and not the whole list. Thks for your answer. Gal' Yes, it has been discussed many times. Since you're using gmail, you have to either pop your gmail and use a MUA (like IceDove, Kmail, Evolution, Sypheed, mutt, etc) and use a reply to list funcion. Otherwise, you will need to edit each message you reply to so that it is not sent to the person, but to the list. Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGDQ/aiXBCVWpc5J4RAiekAJ48DP0gHDUe4fMS8CsucCXknIVuYACgrWrE I0fB4Pioh6uVGrXsG+0w9yg= =MX9Y -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/30/07 08:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it possible to know why the reply-to field is not set to debian-user@lists.debian.org mailto:debian-user@lists.debian.org for each mail coming from the ML ? I am quite sure you have discussed it before, but I am relatively new to this ML. When you used not to take care about replying -it is the case in lots of ml, e.g. gentoo'- it is very disappointing to see your replies to be sent out to the last sender and not the whole list. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Icedove (with the appropriate plugin), Evolution, KMail mutt all do Reply-to-list. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGDRA/S9HxQb37XmcRAoRPAJ92DN+wKl2F/4zIxVX+9dJXE+A7MgCfZwRg OXN1muAcsZQCoxPn5YFKZyA= =oeGW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:09:29 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it possible to know why the reply-to field is not set to debian-user@lists.debian.org for each mail coming from the ML ? I am quite sure you have discussed it before, but I am relatively new to this ML. When you used not to take care about replying -it is the case in lots of ml, e.g. gentoo'- it is very disappointing to see your replies to be sent out to the last sender and not the whole list. Thks for your answer. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html I haven't been through it carefully, but this is what people bring up. Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
I am forwarding previous answers and adding that I do not want to pop these mails since I suscribed lots of ML, not only debian ones, and it is more convenient for me to readwrite from gmail than poping 3 times (work - home - laptop) thousands of mails. -- Forwarded message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 30 mars 2007 15:28 Subject: Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ? To: Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Okay, thks for your answer. I still can't see any advantage not to fill in reply-to, but I can live with reply-to-all ;o) Rgds Gal' 2007/3/30, Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 03:09:29PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it possible to know why the reply-to field is not set to debian-user@lists.debian.org for each mail coming from the ML ? I am quite sure you have discussed it before, but I am relatively new to this ML. When you used not to take care about replying -it is the case in lots of ml, e.g. gentoo'- it is very disappointing to see your replies to be sent out to the last sender and not the whole list. Yes this is a feature. Most folks like myself have a MUA (mail client) that has a 'reply to list' feature, that replys ONLY to the list. Other clients require you to use 'reply to all' and then remove yourself etc. This is issue is discussed about every 6 months by new folks to the list. I'm sure if you google with 'site:list.debian.org reply to list', you may find the numerous threads on this subject. -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal |mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/| | `. `' Operating System| go to counter.li.org and | | `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656 | | my keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org | |join the new debian-community.org to help Debian! | |___ Unless I ask to be CCd, assume I am subscribed ___| -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGDQ1Vv8UcC1qRZVMRAo6nAJ491ZXVtElaJTjca7z7j4sUgKRydgCdGrU2 tao4x8D7ia0SfBZOUn8CWJo= =a28L -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/30/07 08:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am forwarding previous answers and adding that I do not want to pop these mails since I suscribed lots of ML, not only debian ones, and it is more convenient for me to readwrite from gmail than poping 3 times (work - home - laptop) thousands of mails. Complain to Google that their MUA is lacking an important feature. Reply-to-list OR IMAP functionality. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGDRlVS9HxQb37XmcRAgGSAKCWVYu9W235eJVQN6vJ3ymOTUTOvgCgoFDu dK5/AdxnWKDSdZ9GY969Vv4= =kFoy -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
IMAP is not interesting for me at work, and there is reply-to-all feature yet, so I am not sure the problem is coming from Google MUA, but from the reply-to field instead. I read the Celejar link (thanks for him to have brought it up) and tried to think that it was the reason why we don't have it in debian ML. But I totally disagree with it. Next italics-bleu text is coming from http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html.It Adds NothingReply-Tomunging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer. People want to munge Reply-To headers to make reply back to the list easy. ? Of course there is a plus. You don't have to pay attention to what kind of reply you are doing. (Nor what kind of MUA you are using) It Makes Things BreakIt, in fact, *decreases* functionality. Reply-Tomunging destroys the reply-to-author capability. Munging makes this command act effectively the same as the reply-to-group function. We haven't added anything new, we've only taken away. Reply-To munging is not merely benign, it is harmful. ? it missed something we are talking about adding Reply-to to ML, not to day-to-day emails. It is a wrong way not to take the use into consideration: most of the replies are done to the ML, so we can easily consider replying to the whole ML as a default behaviour. In very particular cases, when you don't want to share, you can do the cut/paste effort to target only one contributor, can't you ? So what's broken ? Freedom of Choice Some administrators justify Reply-To munging by saying, All responses should go directly to the list anyway. This is arrogant. ? choice of what ? In our case we are talking about more convenience, and one point that can be checked is having the default behaviour matching the needs. No choice is bad. But what about the defaults tuned up ? Well, I still can't see any problem using reply-to. For ML usage, of course. (And there is also other usage, but no the matter here.) Gal' 2007/3/30, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/30/07 08:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am forwarding previous answers and adding that I do not want to pop these mails since I suscribed lots of ML, not only debian ones, and it is more convenient for me to readwrite from gmail than poping 3 times (work - home - laptop) thousands of mails. Complain to Google that their MUA is lacking an important feature. Reply-to-list OR IMAP functionality. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGDRlVS9HxQb37XmcRAgGSAKCWVYu9W235eJVQN6vJ3ymOTUTOvgCgoFDu dK5/AdxnWKDSdZ9GY969Vv4= =kFoy -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:58:10 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tried to think that it was the reason why we don't have it in debian ML. But I totally disagree with it. Why do we have to have this argument every month? It doesn't matter if you disagree or not! This is the way this list is, so you accept it and live with it or you don't. You make the choice. Why do I have to put up with your whining about it? -- Raquel Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone. --Thomas Jefferson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
On 30.03.07 16:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ? it missed something we are talking about adding Reply-to to ML, not to day-to-day emails. it is just the thing considered harmful. Get an e-mail client that supports List-Reply feature. Mailing list manager should not decide who to send replies to. It's up to the sender of e-mail to specify where (s)he wishes replies should be sent to and up to the replier to decide who it will send reply to, list, sender or both. It is a wrong way not to take the use into consideration: most of the replies are done to the ML, so we can easily consider replying to the whole ML as a default behaviour. Yes, it is. In very particular cases, when you don't want to share, you can do the cut/paste effort to target only one contributor, can't you ? So what's broken ? The reasoning of people who want Reply-To being set up. The mailers who do not know about mailing lists. ...this should be mentioned in mailing lists FAQ, if there is any... -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Quantum mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMAP is not interesting for me at work, and there is reply-to-all feature yet, so I am not sure the problem is coming from Google MUA, but from the reply-to field instead. I read the Celejar link (thanks for him to have brought it up) and tried to think that it was the reason why we don't have it in debian ML. But I totally disagree with it. Next italics-bleu text is coming from http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html. It Adds Nothing 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. ? Of course there is a plus. You don't have to pay attention to what kind of reply you are doing. (Nor what kind of MUA you are using) It Makes Things Break It, in fact, /decreases/ functionality. Reply-To munging destroys the reply-to-author capability. Munging makes this command act effectively the same as the reply-to-group function. We haven't added anything new, we've only taken away. Reply-To munging is not merely benign, it is harmful. ? it missed something we are talking about adding Reply-to to ML, not to day-to-day emails. It is a wrong way not to take the use into consideration: most of the replies are done to the ML, so we can easily consider replying to the whole ML as a default behaviour. In very particular cases, when you don't want to share, you can do the cut/paste effort to target only one contributor, can't you ? So what's broken ? Freedom of Choice Some administrators justify Reply-To munging by saying, All responses should go directly to the list anyway. This is arrogant. ? choice of what ? In our case we are talking about more convenience, and one point that can be checked is having the default behaviour matching the needs. No choice is bad. But what about the defaults tuned up ? Well, I still can't see any problem using reply-to. For ML usage, of course. (And there is also other usage, but no the matter here.) Gal' 2007/3/30, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 03/30/07 08:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am forwarding previous answers and adding that I do not want to pop these mails since I suscribed lots of ML, not only debian ones, and it is more convenient for me to readwrite from gmail than poping 3 times (work - home - laptop) thousands of mails. Complain to Google that their MUA is lacking an important feature. Reply-to-list OR IMAP functionality. Before you contunue ranting, please read: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct There you would learn that this sort of behavior is not acceptable here, nor is the type of message (meaning formatted with HTML) the format we use because not everyone can read it. All you are doing is rehashing an argument that has taken place over and over. You don't like the list, then unsubscribe. Simple. Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGDUB7iXBCVWpc5J4RAi29AKCo1/0+iQz24buhnabbbZWCstVN0QCgnXLG tKfez/kuSFmwHD4YKGeV2SA= =QVod -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
Ron Johnson wrote on Friday, March 30, 2007 9:06 AM -0500: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/30/07 08:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am forwarding previous answers and adding that I do not want to pop these mails since I suscribed lots of ML, not only debian ones, and it is more convenient for me to readwrite from gmail than poping 3 times (work - home - laptop) thousands of mails. Complain to Google that their MUA is lacking an important feature. It's only important to the Debian mailing lists and a small number of others. It's not important to the majority of other mailing lists, and that's probably why Google and many others don't bother supporting that function. -- Seth Goodman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
Joe Hart wrote on Friday, March 30, 2007 11:53 AM -0500: All you are doing is rehashing an argument that has taken place over and over. You don't like the list, then unsubscribe. Simple. The OP could have presented his request differently, but I don't think a binary answer in the spirit of love it or leave it is particularly helpful. The method of handling Reply-To: in this mailing list is in the minority, and even if people believe it to be better, that puts the burden of explanation on us. Having the question come up over and over again, followed by a generally unsuccessful attempt to convince the questioner that everyone else does it wrong, is the price of doing things this way. -- Seth Goodman
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 02:21:34PM -0500, Seth Goodman wrote: The OP could have presented his request differently, but I don't think a binary answer in the spirit of love it or leave it is particularly helpful. The method of handling Reply-To: in this mailing list is in the minority, and even if people believe it to be better, that puts the burden of explanation on us. Having the question come up over and over again, followed by a generally unsuccessful attempt to convince the questioner that everyone else does it wrong, is the price of doing things this way. Actually, no, the burden is not on us. It is really quite simple. When you join a group, you adapt to *its* norms and conventions. If you don't like, then you are free to leave. Now, asking (politely) for an explanation is usually not a problem. However, starting off with this is broken, it needs to change is not usually welcomed unless you happen to carry a great deal of influence in the group. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Seth Goodman wrote: Joe Hart wrote on Friday, March 30, 2007 11:53 AM -0500: All you are doing is rehashing an argument that has taken place over and over. You don't like the list, then unsubscribe. Simple. The OP could have presented his request differently, but I don't think a binary answer in the spirit of love it or leave it is particularly helpful. The method of handling Reply-To: in this mailing list is in the minority, and even if people believe it to be better, that puts the burden of explanation on us. Having the question come up over and over again, followed by a generally unsuccessful attempt to convince the questioner that everyone else does it wrong, is the price of doing things this way. I didn't say what I said on his first rant, it was his second. I pointed him to to rules of conduct and told him to abide them or to leave if he didn't like it. I stand by my post. I adapted my way of using e-mail for this list, he can do the same. Look back through the thread and you'll see that I offered a suggestion that he use a decent client, just like a few other people did. When he came back telling us what to do, well Do you think it's appropriate for someone to come on this list and bash Debian for not being what they want instead of asking Debian users how to achieve what they want? It's just as bad as people moving into a country and then telling the natives to modify their culture to suit them. It should be the other way around. Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGDWhniXBCVWpc5J4RAhJEAKDBcHoPtgzY76/AHT4AiDYotLvnBQCfQyrI OHreNIFEXcHYgkCey111Aa8= =Nijl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Roberto � wrote: On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 02:21:34PM -0500, Seth Goodman wrote: The OP could have presented his request differently, but I don't think a binary answer in the spirit of love it or leave it is particularly helpful. The method of handling Reply-To: in this mailing list is in the minority, and even if people believe it to be better, that puts the burden of explanation on us. Having the question come up over and over again, followed by a generally unsuccessful attempt to convince the questioner that everyone else does it wrong, is the price of doing things this way. Actually, no, the burden is not on us. It is really quite simple. When you join a group, you adapt to *its* norms and conventions. If you don't like, then you are free to leave. Now, asking (politely) for an explanation is usually not a problem. However, starting off with this is broken, it needs to change is not usually welcomed unless you happen to carry a great deal of influence in the group. Regards, -Roberto Thank you Roberto. - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGDWuoiXBCVWpc5J4RAhcwAKCac+bQagQI3oKKsV1inLlaNsPErACgxvGQ xLDbUrwOBYJON/CPoGU6MHE= =OBrI -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/30/07 14:43, Joe Hart wrote: [snip] It's just as bad as people moving into a country and then telling the natives to modify their culture to suit them. It should be the other way around. Now that's an invitation to a 10 week OT thread-from-hell if I ever saw one... - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGDW2NS9HxQb37XmcRAqVYAKCTh2JNQ7SkIPrrtsn3ZVbLUsSECQCePjK2 Z9ceqiHpkHU3xgSHNWDG8fU= =88D9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/30/07 14:09, Seth Goodman wrote: Ron Johnson wrote on Friday, March 30, 2007 9:06 AM -0500: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/30/07 08:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am forwarding previous answers and adding that I do not want to pop these mails since I suscribed lots of ML, not only debian ones, and it is more convenient for me to readwrite from gmail than poping 3 times (work - home - laptop) thousands of mails. Complain to Google that their MUA is lacking an important feature. It's only important to the Debian mailing lists and a small number of others. It's not important to the majority of other mailing lists, and that's probably why Google and many others don't bother supporting that function. It's like using MSFT. If all you've ever known is a buggy malware- filled OS, and you've been conditioned to grab your ankles, crying Thank you Mr Gates, may I have another! then you don't know any better. We, however, know that just because Joe User doesn't know any better, it doesn't mean that there is nothing better. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGDW58S9HxQb37XmcRAhJ2AKChsd5BY6phUXlyBid3iIKqCPlOXwCfW7pL eusbprzbslq4P7SHtTHaeBQ= =2vQv -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ron Johnson wrote: On 03/30/07 14:43, Joe Hart wrote: [snip] It's just as bad as people moving into a country and then telling the natives to modify their culture to suit them. It should be the other way around. Now that's an invitation to a 10 week OT thread-from-hell if I ever saw one... It's just an analogy. I'll leave it at that. Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGDXAuiXBCVWpc5J4RAlKNAKC4Rl/aqxXqeOgEgI8weXMlZdopKwCeNwBD ZW7nHTnGUPFsKJ/ZjHlf+ME= =BkX7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
On 03/30/07 08:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am forwarding previous answers and adding that I do not want to pop these mails since I suscribed lots of ML, not only debian ones, and it is more convenient for me to readwrite from gmail than poping 3 times (work - home - laptop) thousands of mails. Ron Johnson wrote on Friday, March 30, 2007 9:06 AM -0500: Complain to Google that their MUA is lacking an important feature. On 30.03.07 14:09, Seth Goodman wrote: It's only important to the Debian mailing lists and a small number of others. It's not important to the majority of other mailing lists, and that's probably why Google and many others don't bother supporting that function. It's important nearly WHEREVER mailing lists are. Mailing list headers are defined in RFC2369 and are made to give users flexibility. Telling tkat someone does not need them is silly as person with bad sight telling (s)he doesn't need eye-glasses because (s)he doesn't know what it is. The whole fact that majority of other mailing lists and their users does not know about this does not mean it's useless. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 15:09 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: On 03/30/07 14:09, Seth Goodman wrote: Ron Johnson wrote on Friday, March 30, 2007 9:06 AM -0500: On 03/30/07 08:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am forwarding previous answers and adding that I do not want to pop these mails since I suscribed lots of ML, not only debian ones, and it is more convenient for me to readwrite from gmail than poping 3 times (work - home - laptop) thousands of mails. Complain to Google that their MUA is lacking an important feature. It's only important to the Debian mailing lists and a small number of others. It's not important to the majority of other mailing lists, and that's probably why Google and many others don't bother supporting that function. It's like using MSFT. If all you've ever known is a buggy malware- filled OS, and you've been conditioned to grab your ankles, crying Thank you Mr Gates, may I have another! then you don't know any better. We, however, know that just because Joe User doesn't know any better, it doesn't mean that there is nothing better. Ayyaha, men, brother! \o/ \o/ \o/ I always akin it to: If all you ever have eaten all your life is dog-poo, how do you know any better? You get the drift? -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at the playfield. -- Thane Walkup -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote on Friday, March 30, 2007 3:31 PM -0500: The whole fact that majority of other mailing lists and their users does not know about this does not mean it's useless. You mean it _could_ be useful if most others went along, which they haven't. There are a lot of things about normal SMTP practice that violate recent RFC's and I personally don't like. For something that doesn't affect mail transport, but is a matter of how MUA's interpret trace headers, most people feel they have bigger fish to fry. To fix this problem, you need to convince not only the makers of numerous MTA's to change, but the maintainers of mailing list packages and a large number of mailing list administrators. That's a large enough hurdle that I think it safe to say the horse has left the barn on this one a long time ago. Continuing to insist that things _should_ have been different, long past the point where that is feasible, only makes us look foolish. In that, we have been successful. -- Seth Goodman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/30/07 15:46, Greg Folkert wrote: On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 15:09 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] It's like using MSFT. If all you've ever known is a buggy malware- filled OS, and you've been conditioned to grab your ankles, crying Thank you Mr Gates, may I have another! then you don't know any better. We, however, know that just because Joe User doesn't know any better, it doesn't mean that there is nothing better. Ayyaha, men, brother! \o/ \o/ \o/ I always akin it to: If all you ever have eaten all your life is dog-poo, how do you know any better? You get the drift? Or drunk (Anheuser-Busch) Budweiser. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGDYIsS9HxQb37XmcRAqoaAJ92RjMmm0J0cd/eX+C+ocTk6/6jHwCggJvS +3sVHV4NTUTF2GrnvguerJw= =ILXX -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/30/07 16:33, Seth Goodman wrote: Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote on Friday, March 30, 2007 3:31 PM -0500: The whole fact that majority of other mailing lists and their users does not know about this does not mean it's useless. You mean it _could_ be useful if most others went along, which they haven't. There are a lot of things about normal SMTP practice that violate recent RFC's and I personally don't like. For something that doesn't affect mail transport, but is a matter of how MUA's interpret trace headers, most people feel they have bigger fish to fry. To fix this problem, you need to convince not only the makers of numerous MTA's to change, but the maintainers of mailing list packages and a large number of mailing list administrators. That's a large enough hurdle that I think it safe to say the horse has left the barn on this one a long time ago. Continuing to insist that things _should_ have been different, long past the point where that is feasible, only makes us look foolish. In that, we have been successful. By very similar reasoning, we should all dump Linux and go with the OS that has 95% usage. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGDYQYS9HxQb37XmcRAp3oAKCVLT+m8wBiu7xp9NXDFh/j1R6mMACfTmbr zcgJnzUnhNW7IPKImbrYApI= =Z1jV -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
Ron Johnson wrote on Friday, March 30, 2007 4:42 PM -0500: On 03/30/07 16:33, Seth Goodman wrote: That's a large enough hurdle that I think it safe to say the horse has left the barn on this one a long time ago. Continuing to insist that things _should_ have been different, long past the point where that is feasible, only makes us look foolish. In that, we have been successful. By very similar reasoning, we should all dump Linux and go with the OS that has 95% usage. Not at all. Unix predated Windows and has had a large following all along. This is different from the preferred usage of mailing list trace headers, which only a small number of implementations ever took seriously. -- Seth Goodman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/30/07 16:50, Seth Goodman wrote: Ron Johnson wrote on Friday, March 30, 2007 4:42 PM -0500: On 03/30/07 16:33, Seth Goodman wrote: That's a large enough hurdle that I think it safe to say the horse has left the barn on this one a long time ago. Continuing to insist that things _should_ have been different, long past the point where that is feasible, only makes us look foolish. In that, we have been successful. By very similar reasoning, we should all dump Linux and go with the OS that has 95% usage. Not at all. Unix predated Windows and has had a large following all along. This is different from the preferred usage of mailing list trace headers, which only a small number of implementations ever took seriously. And the counter argument would be that not-munging-Reply-To has always been popular amongst people who know what they are doing. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGDZQdS9HxQb37XmcRAslyAJ9EGTLGWZT72wgsjDycx1/zIQLFZgCePpn+ urpQsQvPQKc2ReYjtUnl5Us= =SyQg -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
Okay guys, so, just to calm down, I never told you what to do. I just faced twice the problem of answering to the wrong addressee, and I saw that it happens sometimes to others. I listened to your proposal of using a MUA, then argued that it was not suiting my needs. (I don't think just about me, of course I really know you don't care about my personal issues, but I am talking about general ones in order to adapt to the most needs). As I said in the beginning, I doubt if I were the first guy to ask you for that. Celejar gave me a link that may explain why reply-to usage is bad, and I -verry sorry for that- gave my point of view, but please note that I did not tell you what you have to do. Thanks for your attention. Gal'
RE: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
Ron Johnson wrote on Friday, March 30, 2007 5:50 PM -0500: And the counter argument would be that not-munging-Reply-To has always been popular amongst people who know what they are doing. Most people who know what they're doing don't insist that the rest of the world changes its behavior on something that is not important. Besides, you rejected popularity as an argument. -- Seth Goodman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/30/07 18:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay guys, so, just to calm down, I never told you what to do. I just faced twice the problem of answering to the wrong addressee, and I saw that it happens sometimes to others. I listened to your proposal of using a MUA, then argued that it was not suiting my needs. (I don't think just about me, of course I really know you don't care about my personal issues, but I am talking about general ones in order to adapt to the most needs). As I said in the beginning, I doubt if I were the first guy to ask you for that. Celejar gave me a link that may explain why reply-to usage is bad, and I -verry sorry for that- gave my point of view, but please note that I did not tell you what you have to do. Thanks for your attention. Noobie stomps in, uses HTML mail (which you are *still* doing, and still breaking the Code Of Conduct) and tells us not to follow an internet standard, because no one else does it. That's not appreciated. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGDaiQS9HxQb37XmcRAt3BAKCS85+zl9OAUvJPNEpq/5/IyV5DrQCg0Rz7 rGzA+zEErSPCoUoWblUDE3U= =UgJs -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/30/07 18:11, Seth Goodman wrote: Ron Johnson wrote on Friday, March 30, 2007 5:50 PM -0500: And the counter argument would be that not-munging-Reply-To has always been popular amongst people who know what they are doing. Most people who know what they're doing don't insist that the rest of the world changes its behavior on something that is not important. We're not insisting that other MLs do it properly. (Of course, it would be a good thing.) Besides, you rejected popularity as an argument. I'm not actually using it, but just saying what the counter-argument *would* be if we accepted popularity as a valid point of argument. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGDdBFS9HxQb37XmcRAmqdAJ4spwwGb9JQd6t7OS3d6glLjL9mbQCfQl7/ 2Vil+K1F9bgFRk7xB6lTT6M= =N4Y7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:06:45 -0500 Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 03/30/07 18:11, Seth Goodman wrote: Most people who know what they're doing don't insist that the rest of the world changes its behavior on something that is not important. We're not insisting that other MLs do it properly. (Of course, it would be a good thing.) Let's put it this way ... If I were to join the yacht club there would be certain rules I would be expect to adhere to. There is not a person in the world who would expect the yacht club to change their rules to be just the same as those of the quilting club. The same goes for being here. -- Raquel It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. --Thomas Jefferson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
