Re: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
Hei hei, On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 03:59:24PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: Then there is *little* we disagree with in this scope. I am *against* Reply-To: mudging by list software and believe it should *only* be employed by a poster wishing replies to his posts to be rec'd by a different account such as posting from work and wanting receipt at home. And is mostly a crutch for unknowning/unable individuals to control their email environment and probably do not even know about Reply-To:. If your user interface offers you reply and reply-to-all/reply-to-list (good ones attach the *right* thing of the latter to the button if there's one) then you do not need to know about what happens in the background or what e-mail headers are, you just hit reply if you want to reply in private and the other button if you want to reply to all aka the list. This is simple and intuitive user interface and that's why I consider a mailing list setting or changing reply to to be broken. Greets Alex -- »With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.« (Jean-Luc Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie) *** GnuPG-FP: 02C8 A590 7FE5 CA5F 3601 D1D5 8FBA 7744 CC87 10D0 *** pgpGr5H0vHMNK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why does some list software not honor the headers? (was ... Re: People want ...)
* Alexander Dahl p...@lespocky.de [03-08-13 12:14]: Hei hei, On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 03:59:24PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: Then there is *little* we disagree with in this scope. I am *against* Reply-To: mudging by list software and believe it should *only* be employed by a poster wishing replies to his posts to be rec'd by a different account such as posting from work and wanting receipt at home. And is mostly a crutch for unknowning/unable individuals to control their email environment and probably do not even know about Reply-To:. If your user interface offers you reply and reply-to-all/reply-to-list (good ones attach the *right* thing of the latter to the button if there's one) then you do not need to know about what happens in the background or what e-mail headers are, you just hit reply if you want to reply in private and the other button if you want to reply to all aka the list. This is simple and intuitive user interface and that's why I consider a mailing list setting or changing reply to to be broken. I know not about button[s] as I work with text from the keyboard. But I believe we are saying/mean the same thing, mailing list software should not insert or alter Reply-To: header! -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
Re: Confused by the Defining/Using Aliases section of the manual
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 05:05:12PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: * Chris Green c...@isbd.net [03-07-13 10:19]: I've been looking into how to improve my mutt addressbook/aliases and statred by looking at the Defining/Using Aliases section. I'm now more confused than I was before! I can understand the Usage: bit at least but then it goes rapidly downhill. It says:- Note If you want to create an alias for more than one address, you must separate the addresses with a comma (“,”). Er, but that disagrees with the Usage: doesn't it? It should (the Usage:) say alias [ -group name ...] key address [, address ...]. alias key-name address or previously-defined-alias \| ,address or previously-defined-alias \| ,address or previously-defined-alias \| ,address or previously-defined-alias \| ,address or previously-defined-alias \| ... So the manual *is* wrong in the Usage: bit. ** I have never used the -group param but do have group aliases that work correctly. Anyway I don't really understand what is meant by create an alias for more than one address - does it really mean an alias which will allow sending mail to more than one address when the alias is used? alias joe Joe Somebody j...@example.com alias jim Jim Somebody j...@example.com alias ron Ron Somebody r...@example.net alias family joe jim ron Yes, and where are the commas it refers to? That was my point. Then it says:- To remove an alias or aliases (“*” means all aliases): followed by an example which seems to be *adding* aliases. unalias * removes all aliases unalias family * removes the alias family unalias jim removes the alias jim Yes, OK, I (sort of) know that, but the manual is simply misleading isn't it? -- Chris Green
Re: Confused by the Defining/Using Aliases section of the manual
* Chris Green c...@isbd.net [03-08-13 15:50]: On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 05:05:12PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: [...] alias key-name address or previously-defined-alias \| ,address or previously-defined-alias \| ,address or previously-defined-alias \| ,address or previously-defined-alias \| ,address or previously-defined-alias \| ... So the manual *is* wrong in the Usage: bit. I don't know, what I do I learned from the manual :^) ** I have never used the -group param but do have group aliases that work correctly. Anyway I don't really understand what is meant by create an alias for more than one address - does it really mean an alias which will allow sending mail to more than one address when the alias is used? alias joe Joe Somebody j...@example.com alias jim Jim Somebody j...@example.com alias ron Ron Somebody r...@example.net alias family joe jim ron Yes, and where are the commas it refers to? That was my point. I don't believe commas are necessary unless you assign more than one address rather than several aliases to a single alias. Remember that an alias is a reference to an address. That is also probably the difference to -group. Commas may be required by -group and optional otherwise... ?? But it would be simple to test. [...] unalias * removes all aliases unalias family * removes the alias family unalias jim removes the alias jim Yes, OK, I (sort of) know that, but the manual is simply misleading isn't it? Perhaps not perfectly clear but everyone does not read the same meaning into written words. Few written texts are perfectly clear... -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
Re: Confused by the Defining/Using Aliases section of the manual
Incoming from Patrick Shanahan:
* Chris Green c...@isbd.net [03-08-13 15:50]:
So the manual *is* wrong in the Usage: bit.
I feel your pain. :-|
I don't believe commas are necessary unless you assign more than one
FWIW, alias family ek,mom works.
Perhaps not perfectly clear but everyone does not read the same
meaning into written words. Few written texts are perfectly
Nobody reads documentation anyway, right? :-P
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) :(){ :|: };:
- -
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
