Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote: >> On 06Jul2010 09:47, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> | Well, the Reply-To >> | munging will override the Cc and make all the replies go to the ml >> | *only*. >> >> Your mail client is weak. > > Sorry, I thought I read that was what the Reply-To field was supposed > to do but apparently I'm wrong. Would have to check. > > Then people can avoid "please keep me in cc"; they can just Cc themselves. Correction, I was right: most clients drop the Cc when Reply-To is present. Possibly because the user clicks "reply" instead of "reply to all", maybe because that's the only option. I tried to and myself to the Cc in another munged mailing list; while some people replied correctly. Most did not. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Tim wrote: > Tim: >>> It doesn't double up the *to* addresses, when I reply here. I second >>> the motion that it's most likely to be a gmail problem. Either what it >>> does, or how you're using it. > > Tom H: >> Thanks for the info. >> >> The way that I am using it?! LOL > > Well, it had to be one of those two options, and was a brilliant chance > to shove a joke in. ;-) An awful lot of mailing problems are down to > how people use their clients (pressing the wrong buttons, filling their > own details into the preferences incorrectly, etc.). :) I am using the webmail interface where it's hard to screw up... -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:55:49 -0400 Chris Tyler wrote: > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 09:23 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote: > > On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 08:57:48 -0400 > > Chris Tyler wrote: > > > > > a process that takes a few seconds > > > > I understand the need to subscribe, but the process does > > not take a few seconds. For one thing, a lot of ISPs > > seem to be blocked or are blocking replies (you can't ever > > tell which one), so you have to try different mail > > accounts till you find one that actually works both ways, > > and not knowing how long it might take to get a reply, > > it can take a while to decide the first address you used > > isn't going to work. > > Well, obviously, when using a mailing list, a end-to-end working mail > configuration is needed. (This underlines the value of the "confirm this > mail" step in the subscription process). > > But that said, when you have a working mail setup, it takes only a few > seconds to subscribe to a list (e.g., once on a Fedora mailing list, it > takes only a few seconds to add another. Maybe a few minutes, if your > mail system is slow). > > -Chris > How about someone starting a new thread? This one is getting pretty long. -- Tom Taylor - retired penguin openSuSE 11.3-RC1 x86_64 Fedora 13 x64 KDE 4.4.4, FF 3.6.4 claws-mail 3.7.6 registered linux user 263467 linxt-At-comcast-DoT-net -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 05:33 -0400, Tom H wrote: > Tim has posted that he doesn't see this de-doubling on Yahoo. Well, I should point out that I'm using Evolution for mail, even though the mail goes through a yahoo address. We're lucky to still have POP3 access to the free yahoo mail service, here. So it's really the Evolution mail client that's not having a problem with that issue. -- [...@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
Tim: >> It doesn't double up the *to* addresses, when I reply here. I second >> the motion that it's most likely to be a gmail problem. Either what it >> does, or how you're using it. Tom H: > Thanks for the info. > > The way that I am using it?! LOL Well, it had to be one of those two options, and was a brilliant chance to shove a joke in. ;-) An awful lot of mailing problems are down to how people use their clients (pressing the wrong buttons, filling their own details into the preferences incorrectly, etc.). I can't see why it should happen, it hasn't happened here, and I saw nothing in the posts to suggest a reason why it should. I am inclined to believe it's most likely to be another one of those gmail oddities. -- [...@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:16:41 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > However, were you strict in saying "no, deal with 'reply to all'"? If > so, did your users managed? Yes, my lists, my rules. I think there are mistakes from time to time, but the lists are pretty low traffic in the first place so it's hard to say what the relative error rate is from memory. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Tim wrote: > On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 11:02 -0400, Tom H wrote: >> You (Todd) and others have the following: >> from Felipe Contreras >> reply-to Community support for Fedora users >> >> to Community support for Fedora users >> date Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:10 AM >> subject Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers >> mailing list users.lists.fedoraproject.org Filter messages from this >> mailing list >> mailed-by lists.fedoraproject.org >> unsubscribe Unsubscribe from this mailing-list >> >> and hitting reply results in having the following in the to: field >> Community support for Fedora users , >> users@lists.fedoraproject.org > > It doesn't double up the *to* addresses, when I reply here. I second > the motion that it's most likely to be a gmail problem. Either what it > does, or how you're using it. Thanks for the info. The way that I am using it?! LOL As I said, it happens when replying to some. I just delete the extra address when it happens and that's it. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote: > Tom H wrote: >> You (Todd) and others have the following: >> from Felipe Contreras >> reply-to Community support for Fedora users >> >> to Community support for Fedora users >> date Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:10 AM >> subject Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers >> mailing list users.lists.fedoraproject.org Filter messages from this >> mailing list >> mailed-by lists.fedoraproject.org >> unsubscribe Unsubscribe from this mailing-list >> >> and hitting reply results in having the following in the to: field >> Community support for Fedora users , >> users@lists.fedoraproject.org >> >> For Felipe, it is: >> from Felipe Contreras >> reply-to Community support for Fedora users >> >> to Community support for Fedora users >> date Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:44 AM >> subject Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers >> mailing list users.lists.fedoraproject.org Filter messages from this >> mailing list >> mailed-by lists.fedoraproject.org >> unsubscribe Unsubscribe from this mailing-list >> >> and >> Community support for Fedora users > > It might be gmail doing this to you. The reply-to and from fields > don't match exactly, so perhaps they're "helpfully" addressing the > mail to both. My MUA (mutt) doesn't do this no matter how I reply > (list-reply, reply, or reply-all). I was just confirming what Felipe said about your headers. It must be gmail because (1) if I choose "show original", your reply-to field is ok, (2) Felipe is also on gmail, (3) Tim has posted that he doesn't see this de-doubling on Yahoo. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> At least you can remove the "Your message to $foo awaits moderator >> approval" automatic reply; it's clearly a lie. > > I don't receive those messages when I post from a non-subscribed > address. I did on the packaging mailing list. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 13:02:37 +0300, > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> Who are those mythical creatures that don't know about "reply to all"? >> I keep hearing about them, but as far as I know everybody that knows >> how to send email knows to send mail to more than one recipient, which >> requires knowledge of "reply to all". No? > > If you read this thread there are posts that strong suggest that some of the > respondents in this thread either don't know about reply to all or refuse > to use it. No. What they have argued is that *other* people might not know about it, which as I've explained is not the case as even common users know how to send mail to more than one person and keep the thread alive. Let's not confuse a) users "not knowing how to use reply to all", and b) users "annoyed by mistakenly not hitting reply to all". I've never seen a case of a), and I don't think it's likely, but I do have seen cases of b), but I think the advantages of not munging vastly compensate for that minor annoyance. > I have seen people ask about this on other lists (not related to Fedora) > where I don't do reply munging. Some people really expect reply to sender > to reply to the list. Yes, I think some mailing lists might have spoiled them. However, were you strict in saying "no, deal with 'reply to all'"? If so, did your users managed? -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 11:02 -0400, Tom H wrote: > You (Todd) and others have the following: > fromFelipe Contreras > reply-toCommunity support for Fedora users > > to Community support for Fedora users > dateWed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:10 AM > subject Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers > mailing listusers.lists.fedoraproject.org Filter messages from this > mailing list > mailed-by lists.fedoraproject.org > unsubscribe Unsubscribe from this mailing-list > > and hitting reply results in having the following in the to: field > Community support for Fedora users , > users@lists.fedoraproject.org It doesn't double up the *to* addresses, when I reply here. I second the motion that it's most likely to be a gmail problem. Either what it does, or how you're using it. -- [...@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
Tom H wrote: > You (Todd) and others have the following: > from Felipe Contreras > reply-to Community support for Fedora users > > toCommunity support for Fedora users > date Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:10 AM > subject Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers > mailing list users.lists.fedoraproject.org Filter messages from this > mailing list > mailed-by lists.fedoraproject.org > unsubscribe Unsubscribe from this mailing-list > > and hitting reply results in having the following in the to: field > Community support for Fedora users , > users@lists.fedoraproject.org > > For Felipe, it is: > from Felipe Contreras > reply-to Community support for Fedora users > > toCommunity support for Fedora users > date Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:44 AM > subject Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers > mailing list users.lists.fedoraproject.org Filter messages from this > mailing list > mailed-by lists.fedoraproject.org > unsubscribe Unsubscribe from this mailing-list > > and > Community support for Fedora users It might be gmail doing this to you. The reply-to and from fields don't match exactly, so perhaps they're "helpfully" addressing the mail to both. My MUA (mutt) doesn't do this no matter how I reply (list-reply, reply, or reply-all). -- ToddOpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~ Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain pgp8WZR4021UY.pgp Description: PGP signature -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Wednesday, 07 July, 2010 @ 10:19 zulu, Felipe Contreras scribed: > Wrong; that spam mail is totally unrelated. > > Say moderation was enabled, and I was made moderator *today*. Would > any extra spam reach your inbox? No. > > *I* (the moderator) would have to approve it first. If I'm bad at my > job I would not be processing mails very fast, but approving spam is > something no sober normal human would do (only perhaps in vary rare > occasions). Cleverly-crafted spam can be difficult to discern sometimes. Suppose a non-subscriber wanting to drive traffic to their site posts a link to it and claims they're having a hard time reaching it while using some browser in fedora... Should the moderator try that in multiple browsers to see if there is really a problem or just pass the message on to the list? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Making things easier for lurkers (was Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Wednesday, 07 July, 2010 @ 05:43 zulu, Joel Rees scribed: > Okay, the digest listing does give us the message-ID line from > the headers, so it shouldn't be too hard to maintain threading > with a little extra copy/paste. If your MUA doesn't provide a > way to set arbitrary headers, though, that won't work after all. The digest should include all the messages as attachments, and replying to the opened message should put its message-ID in the "In-Reply-To:" header so threading works correctly (in IMAP or in the web-archived version). I learned that not long ago in this very mailing list, by the way. :-) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 10:41:20 -0500 Bruno Wolff III wrote: > I have seen people ask about this on other lists (not related to Fedora) > where I don't do reply munging. That's the real key to the problem - so many lists do it so many different ways that it is hard to keep track of what to do on any specific list. It would be much simpler to do the right thing if that right thing was the same for all mailing lists :-). -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 15:44:24 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > Including plenty of people who explicitly ask not to be personally CCed, > > yea, even to the point of putting such a request at the top of _every_ > > post they make. > > *Some* nut-jobs might not like to be Cc'ed. You still have not > explained *why* they wouldn't want that, and you still haven't > provided any evidence that there are *plenty* of cases. The proper way for people to do that is to use a mail-followup-to header that doesn't include their email address. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 13:02:37 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Who are those mythical creatures that don't know about "reply to all"? > I keep hearing about them, but as far as I know everybody that knows > how to send email knows to send mail to more than one recipient, which > requires knowledge of "reply to all". No? If you read this thread there are posts that strong suggest that some of the respondents in this thread either don't know about reply to all or refuse to use it. I have seen people ask about this on other lists (not related to Fedora) where I don't do reply munging. Some people really expect reply to sender to reply to the list. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> For some reason when I receive mail from you I see: >> reply-to: Community support for Fedora users >> , users@lists.fedoraproject.org > > It must be your mail client or something along the way. That's not > the what the reply-to field is in my messages. It's simply: > Reply-To: Community support for Fedora users You (Todd) and others have the following: fromFelipe Contreras reply-toCommunity support for Fedora users to Community support for Fedora users date Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:10 AM subject Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers mailing listusers.lists.fedoraproject.org Filter messages from this mailing list mailed-by lists.fedoraproject.org unsubscribe Unsubscribe from this mailing-list and hitting reply results in having the following in the to: field Community support for Fedora users , users@lists.fedoraproject.org For Felipe, it is: fromFelipe Contreras reply-toCommunity support for Fedora users to Community support for Fedora users date Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:44 AM subject Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers mailing listusers.lists.fedoraproject.org Filter messages from this mailing list mailed-by lists.fedoraproject.org unsubscribe Unsubscribe from this mailing-list and Community support for Fedora users -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
Felipe Contreras wrote: > At least you can remove the "Your message to $foo awaits moderator > approval" automatic reply; it's clearly a lie. I don't receive those messages when I post from a non-subscribed address. > For some reason when I receive mail from you I see: > reply-to: Community support for Fedora users > , users@lists.fedoraproject.org > > There's something wrong there. It must be your mail client or something along the way. That's not the what the reply-to field is in my messages. It's simply: Reply-To: Community support for Fedora users -- ToddOpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~ Thanks, for a country where nobody is allowed to mind his own business. Thanks, for a nation of finks. -- William S. Burroughs, A Thanksgiving Prayer pgpVow5ZNTyGs.pgp Description: PGP signature -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Making things easier for lurkers (was Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
Joel Rees wrote: > Okay, the digest listing does give us the message-ID line from the > headers, so it shouldn't be too hard to maintain threading with a > little extra copy/paste. If your MUA doesn't provide a way to set > arbitrary headers, though, that won't work after all. If you use the MIME-style digest instead of the plain text version, you don't have to worry about extracting the message-id and inserting it into your MUA. You'll simply get a digest that contains a series of rfc822 message parts. Most MUA's should be able to reply directly to any of these parts and the threading will remain intact. > I'm thinking it would be nice to have the html archives set up so > that, if you've logged in (as you do to change your mail settings), > you could click a link in the post and the list server would ship > you a copy of the post you're looking at, with all the addresses > clipped, and the original sender replaced with the list address, and > the message-ID intact for threading. > > That could help resolve the discussion about setting the return > address to the list, as well. > > I suppose I should cobble together some sort of demo. The main issue here is that unless you get this included in upstream Mailman or create a drop-in replacement for the Mailman archiver, it's not likely that it will be installed on lists.fedoraproject.org. We're not very keen on running patched up versions of our tools unless it is absolutely necessary. It makes updating in the event of a security or other critical bug more painful than it needs to be. -- ToddOpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~ What George Washington did for us was to throw out the British, so that we wouldn't have a fat, insensitive government running our country. Nice try anyway, George. -- D.J. on KSFO/KYA pgpKz59SPYqnq.pgp Description: PGP signature -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
Things are fine as they are. Most other lists work the same way. If someone doesn't want to subscribe as they only want to ask one question, then are not missed as most questions can be answered by actually doing a bit of digging, which a lot of users on this list do not do. Also, if they find filling in a simple form and replying to an e-mail they get hard and annoying then what's it going to be like for them to try and diagnose and fix their problem? This whole discussion is far more annoying then the few pieces of spam that manage to get on to this list. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote: > On 06Jul2010 09:47, Felipe Contreras wrote: > | But the actual steps you have to do are different depending on the > | list manager; majordomo is different than mailman. > > So? It is not _very_ different. It is. Try it. > | > It serves two > | > purposes: it catches misspelt email addresses (because the confirmation > | > email fails) and it rejects most spam robots (because they don't process > | > the confirmation email, and generally don't provide anything but lies in > | > email address fields anyway). > | > > | > If there were no spammers and no misconfigured user mail clients and no > | > misfilled forms then this step would not be necessary. But it is because > | > is so greatly reduces trouble. > | > | Yes, but again; other mailing lists manage just fine without requiring > | subscription. > > Good for them. Glad we both agree your argument was invalid. > | If the list remains subscription-only, there's still spam > | that goes through, the spam filter will help. And if the lists is > | moderated, the spam filter would help go through the moderation queue. > | > | The burden would not be on the subscribers, in fact they would receive > | less spam. > > Ok, but the burden on the moderators goes up. Putentially WAY up. How much the burden goes up is unknown. Anyway, I have offered myself to give a try moderating to fill that unknown. > | > | > Subscriptions is a step in minimising crap being posted to the list > | > | > (whether that be spam, or simply tossers who'll post rubbish to lists, > | > | > just to spout crap from their fingers). > | > | > | > | Really? So I don't subscribe I'm a looser whose posts are not welcome? > | > > | > Well, if you don't subscribe you're too lazy to meet the very low bar to > | > entry to the discussion; maybe you're not desirable. This isn't so in > | > your case, since you're clearing prepared to argue cogently for your > | > point of view. But for the many many spammers it _is_ the case that they > | > are not welcome. > | > | Again, that's speculation. > > No, it's not. It is empirical fact. All the "maybes" are speculation on > an individual post basis, but in the aggregate the distribution is real. You don't have *any* data, nor hard, nor empirical, about the people that decide not to subscribe. > | Most of the mailing lists I'm subscribed > | to, allow non-subscribers to post, and there are as many occasional > | posters who don't have a clue there, than here. So again, I don't > | think it's sensible to apply prejudices based on the people's > | subscription, which is very simple to do. > > Nobody is telling you how to run _your_ lists. I am open to suggestions to improve communication. > | > | And if some random guy manages to subscribe (which according to a > | > | previous post it's easy), then it's post is worthwhile? > | > > | > It means they've made an effort: they are probably not a spammer and > | > probably not a robot and _are_ probably more motivated to participate in > | > a valuable way. So yes, _probably_ they are more worthwhile. > | > | The correlation between membership and worthwhileness is very week at > | best. Again, the person can subscribe, troll, and leave. > > Of course. But the correlation is not that weak. At least only people > prepared to make a (small) effort get to post. Spammers make ZERO > effort. Spammers would not get to post; they would be moderated and discarded. And again, the correlation is week. Say Albert Einstein wanted to post to fedora-users, I guess you would qualify his post as worthwhile, and he would consider his time very valuable, so he would only spend his time on tasks that are worthwhile. He would be ok spending time writing an email, but not spending time subscribing a mailing list because that task doesn't achieve anything. Specially considering he said that things should be as simple as possible. > | > Not on all lists. Moderators often lack the time. I speak as one such, > | > and some posts simply don't make it because they have waited too long > | > for attention. It is not scalable. If the list is very active, the > | > problem gets far worse. > | > | Again, other lists manage just fine. Speculation. > > Sigh. Not speculation. I have seen lists made useless by spammers, and > abandoned, and lists where the burden becomes too much for the > moderators. It does happen. If somebody doesn't have time to moderate the mail queue, then the spam just stacks in the moderation queue, but it doesn't get to the list. So your argument wasn't even valid. And again, you don't have *any* evidence as to how much mail would have to be moderated. I would gladly take the role of moderator to figure that out. > | > | >> Orthogonal to this is that the mailing lists should not mingle with > | > | >> "Reply-To"; they should leave the To and Cc fields intact, so that > the > | > | >> MUA can reply to the right addresses. See: > | > | >> http://www.
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:15 PM, JD wrote: > Just to end this debate: you all must have seen this spam post. > If posting is opened to non-subscribers, this will multiply by thousands > and millions. Wrong; that spam mail is totally unrelated. Say moderation was enabled, and I was made moderator *today*. Would any extra spam reach your inbox? No. *I* (the moderator) would have to approve it first. If I'm bad at my job I would not be processing mails very fast, but approving spam is something no sober normal human would do (only perhaps in vary rare occasions). -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: >>> Prior to today the list was set to discard posts from non-members. >>> This setting was made before any of the current list admins were >>> present AFAIK. I believe that sending a rejection is the more >>> courteous setting, and we have changed this now. >> >> Yes, that's better. Thanks. > > Sorry to flip-flop, but we found in testing that Mailman (quite > unfortunately) includes the original message in the rejection notice. > This makes it a very nice spam forwarding system. So back to discard > the setting goes. :( > > I did add a note to the listinfo page stating that subscription is > required to post. At least you can remove the "Your message to $foo awaits moderator approval" automatic reply; it's clearly a lie. For some reason when I receive mail from you I see: reply-to: Community support for Fedora users , users@lists.fedoraproject.org There's something wrong there. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:05:33 +0300, > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> So if anything, Reply-To munging would cause more private mail go to >> the mailing list (i.e. I typed 'r' in mutt, not 'g', but the mail went >> to the ml!) > > That's pretty much what I said. But it has to be balanced against against > people who refuse to learn the difference between the various ways to > reply and will accidentally send replies privately by mistake. If there > are enough of those (and I am not arguing that there are for any Fedora > lists), then it makes sense for people to do it. Who are those mythical creatures that don't know about "reply to all"? I keep hearing about them, but as far as I know everybody that knows how to send email knows to send mail to more than one recipient, which requires knowledge of "reply to all". No? -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 20:13 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> Fact: the current system doesn't allow cross-posting > > Nothing in the current system prevents cross-posting. It's explicitly > discouraged by the list Guidelines, but as we know some people do it > (and usually get jumped on). It's not totally prevented; but it's basically impossible. When you sand mail to say 10 mailing lists that munge replies; each person that replies to the mail would have to manually change the munged recipient the the 10 mailing lists. This obviously doesn't happen; in practice and each mailing lists ends with a different thread, and sometimes the threads get messed up when a person is multiple mailing lists and replies properly to all of them. It is just a huge horrible mess; no wonder it's discouraged. But if you don't have reply munging, nor require subscription; cross-posting Just Works. People do that regularly on linux-kernel, linux-omap, linux-arm-kernel, etc. > The rationale is that you should decide > where best to send your query and send it only to that list. mails != queries > Cross-posting makes it all but impossible to keep threads coherent when > multiple replies appear from different lists, and not everyone is seeing > the same conversation. Everything's coherent if the replies are not munged. When I send a mail to 3 mls (linux-kernel, linux-omap and linux-arm-kernel) any time *anybody* replies to any of those lists, the reply will be posted on all 3 lists. If there's a second level reply of a person that's not subscribed in one of those lists there would be a slight delay when the mail is moderated, but the person of the 1st level reply would receive the mail immediately anyway because he remains in the Cc (not munged), and the 3rd level reply would appear to everybody again. This works just fine. Unless replies are munged and mailing lists are subscriber-only, then yes, it's a horrible mess. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 22:24 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> Anyway, if non-subscribers are not welcome, then I guess I'll just >> refrain from posting here just like everybody else, even when I'm >> asked to do it on Fedora's bugzilla. > > Ah, so the hundreds of people who regularly contribute here are all a > figment of my imagination? I said everybody *else*; nobody knows the amount of people that have wanted to contact Fedora mailing list and have decided not to. > One point that hasn't been mentioned: Fedora is an *experimental* > distro. The people using are are assumed to know that and to be up to > communicating about problems and solutions. If you only want to post a > single question and don't monitor the list on a regular basis, I have to > ask if you should really be using Fedora at all. I regard that as > sufficient justification for the must-subscribe policy. You assume that people would use Fedora mailing lists only for questions; that's not always the case. There are people out there that know what they are doing, and have good ideas about what a distro should do. But somehow it seems nobody here believes Fedora's community can benefit from outsiders. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Making things easier for lurkers (was Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
Tim yahoo.com.au> writes: > > On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 14:43 +0900, Joel Rees wrote: > > I'm thinking it would be nice to have the html archives set up so > > that, if you've logged in (as you do to change your mail settings), > > you could click a link in the post and the list server would ship you > > a copy of the post you're looking at, with all the addresses clipped, > > and the original sender replaced with the list address, and the > > message-ID intact for threading. > > Sounds reasonable, and I recall some list servers already had the > ability to send a particular message upon request (might have been > majordomo, but it's years since I've used a service with that feature). > > However, have a look at gmane.org. If you have a usenet client, you can > already do this with them (albeit as news rather than mail). They may > even have a reply through their webpage interface, as well. But I > haven't looked for a while. > > You may be re-inventing the wheel. Well, not quite. It's a lot of loops to jump through and uses a 3rd party service. The gmane hierarchy seems a bit unnatural to me, as well. (It would seem more reasonable to me to just invert the mailing list domain name, although I suppose they may be maintaining the connection with the list's old name.) I'm using gmane to post this, since I've switched for he moment to digest mode and I haven't figured out how to set the message-ID header using either Apple Mail or Sylpheed. It does look useful, just not for regular posting to the list. Joel Rees -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Making things easier for lurkers (was Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 14:43 +0900, Joel Rees wrote: > I'm thinking it would be nice to have the html archives set up so > that, if you've logged in (as you do to change your mail settings), > you could click a link in the post and the list server would ship you > a copy of the post you're looking at, with all the addresses clipped, > and the original sender replaced with the list address, and the > message-ID intact for threading. Sounds reasonable, and I recall some list servers already had the ability to send a particular message upon request (might have been majordomo, but it's years since I've used a service with that feature). However, have a look at gmane.org. If you have a usenet client, you can already do this with them (albeit as news rather than mail). They may even have a reply through their webpage interface, as well. But I haven't looked for a while. You may be re-inventing the wheel. -- [...@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Making things easier for lurkers (was Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
Okay, the digest listing does give us the message-ID line from the headers, so it shouldn't be too hard to maintain threading with a little extra copy/paste. If your MUA doesn't provide a way to set arbitrary headers, though, that won't work after all. I'm thinking it would be nice to have the html archives set up so that, if you've logged in (as you do to change your mail settings), you could click a link in the post and the list server would ship you a copy of the post you're looking at, with all the addresses clipped, and the original sender replaced with the list address, and the message-ID intact for threading. That could help resolve the discussion about setting the return address to the list, as well. I suppose I should cobble together some sort of demo. (I have a more involved idea about a mailing list server that hides the participants' addresses entirely, substituting list-use-only addresses, but I'm having a hard time even describing that to myself.) -- Joel Rees -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
Cut him some slack here. -- He is the one "should cut some slack here" by subscribing to the list if he wants to post. It is as simple as that. There are "too many" problems already mentioned, and unless he is a very important person that can be excused, then there is no point in arguing the points. It is a priviledge to be on the list and if he wants to post, but not be subscribed and he is not "a very important person", then he should abide like others do. Regards, Antonio P.S. kill -9 thread="Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers" rm -rf thread="Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers" "any others that complain about things that are beyond all control" > /dev/null -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On 06Jul2010 11:21, Bill Davidsen wrote: | Tim wrote: | > By the way. Loose - the opposite of tight. Lose - the opposite of win. | > I'm so sick of people getting that wrong. That's a third year primary | > school language mistake. | > | And a fact which doesn't impact the final outcome of something is moot, not | mute. Everyone has their favorite misuse to annoy them. Felipe has already said English is not his first language. Cut him some slack here. -- Cameron Simpson DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys. - Van Roy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On 06Jul2010 09:47, Felipe Contreras wrote: | On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote: | > On 05Jul2010 20:02, Felipe Contreras wrote: | > | I mean that there are many steps involved, go to this page, fill this, | > | wait for that, reply here, etc. | > | > The procedure of: fill in the joining form, reply to a confirmation | > email is a standard step in most mailing lists these days. | | But the actual steps you have to do are different depending on the | list manager; majordomo is different than mailman. So? It is not _very_ different. | > It serves two | > purposes: it catches misspelt email addresses (because the confirmation | > email fails) and it rejects most spam robots (because they don't process | > the confirmation email, and generally don't provide anything but lies in | > email address fields anyway). | > | > If there were no spammers and no misconfigured user mail clients and no | > misfilled forms then this step would not be necessary. But it is because | > is so greatly reduces trouble. | | Yes, but again; other mailing lists manage just fine without requiring | subscription. Good for them. | > | >> Public mailing lists should receive mail from *anybody*; if the poster | > | >> is not subscribed, then the message should go through moderation. This | > | >> is the truly open way. | > | > | > | > No thanks. If you want groups full of spam, there's usenet for that. | > | | > | There's filters for that. If your current filter doesn't work, switch. | > | bogofilter maybe? | > | > Gah! NO. | > | > This is the standard answer of the spammers too. It is the difference | > between "opt-in" and "opt-out" junk mail. Advertisers always argue that | > they should be free to put people on their mailing lists and that people | > should opt-out when they get the junk. This places the burden on every | > individual receiver of the mail, and is unreasonable. | | No, the spam filter will be *in addition* to whatever is there | already. So, server end? Good. But spam still needs to be winnowed from probably-spam and from "unknown poster" (yeah, any list I run counts those as of unknown value, and maybe spam). | If the list remains subscription-only, there's still spam | that goes through, the spam filter will help. And if the lists is | moderated, the spam filter would help go through the moderation queue. | | The burden would not be on the subscribers, in fact they would receive | less spam. Ok, but the burden on the moderators goes up. Putentially WAY up. | > | > Subscriptions is a step in minimising crap being posted to the list | > | > (whether that be spam, or simply tossers who'll post rubbish to lists, | > | > just to spout crap from their fingers). | > | | > | Really? So I don't subscribe I'm a looser whose posts are not welcome? | > | > Well, if you don't subscribe you're too lazy to meet the very low bar to | > entry to the discussion; maybe you're not desirable. This isn't so in | > your case, since you're clearing prepared to argue cogently for your | > point of view. But for the many many spammers it _is_ the case that they | > are not welcome. | | Again, that's speculation. No, it's not. It is empirical fact. All the "maybes" are speculation on an individual post basis, but in the aggregate the distribution is real. | Most of the mailing lists I'm subscribed | to, allow non-subscribers to post, and there are as many occasional | posters who don't have a clue there, than here. So again, I don't | think it's sensible to apply prejudices based on the people's | subscription, which is very simple to do. Nobody is telling you how to run _your_ lists. | > | And if some random guy manages to subscribe (which according to a | > | previous post it's easy), then it's post is worthwhile? | > | > It means they've made an effort: they are probably not a spammer and | > probably not a robot and _are_ probably more motivated to participate in | > a valuable way. So yes, _probably_ they are more worthwhile. | | The correlation between membership and worthwhileness is very week at | best. Again, the person can subscribe, troll, and leave. Of course. But the correlation is not that weak. At least only people prepared to make a (small) effort get to post. Spammers make ZERO effort. [...] | > | > If the list was moderated in the way you propose, moderators would spend | > | > all their spare time checking new messages, and it'd be ages before your | > | > post got through. | > | | > | No, it takes time, but eventually it gets posted. I do this on many lists. | > | > Not on all lists. Moderators often lack the time. I speak as one such, | > and some posts simply don't make it because they have waited too long | > for attention. It is not scalable. If the list is very active, the | > problem gets far worse. | | Again, other lists manage just fine. Speculation. Sigh. Not speculation. I have seen lists made useless by spammers, and abandoned, and lists where the burden becomes to
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 11:21 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote: > > By the way. Loose - the opposite of tight. Lose - the opposite of > win. > > I'm so sick of people getting that wrong. That's a third year > primary > > school language mistake. > > > And a fact which doesn't impact the final outcome of something is > moot, not mute. Everyone has their favorite misuse to annoy them. your/you're, its/it's, chose/choose plus those who think that i is an English word or that any statement can be made into a question by adding a ? or that a syntactically correct question doesn't require a ? at the end poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
Tim wrote: > By the way. Loose - the opposite of tight. Lose - the opposite of win. > I'm so sick of people getting that wrong. That's a third year primary > school language mistake. > And a fact which doesn't impact the final outcome of something is moot, not mute. Everyone has their favorite misuse to annoy them. > This is a community not a helpline, we're not all here just to solve the > problems of hit-and-run question askers. We expect participation. > That's the price that you pay for asking for help. > Or giving help, but your point is well taken. -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On 07/06/2010 06:08 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 22:24 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> Anyway, if non-subscribers are not welcome, then I guess I'll just >> refrain from posting here just like everybody else, even when I'm >> asked to do it on Fedora's bugzilla. > Ah, so the hundreds of people who regularly contribute here are all a > figment of my imagination? > > One point that hasn't been mentioned: Fedora is an *experimental* > distro. The people using are are assumed to know that and to be up to > communicating about problems and solutions. If you only want to post a > single question and don't monitor the list on a regular basis, I have to > ask if you should really be using Fedora at all. I regard that as > sufficient justification for the must-subscribe policy. > > poc > Just to end this debate: you all must have seen this spam post. If posting is opened to non-subscribers, this will multiply by thousands and millions. On 07/06/2010 06:27 AM, Plan wrote: > Mortgage Rescue Plan Launched > > Program Could Save You 516USD/month > > > Calculate New Payment: > > http://mx12.bestbrickovenbistro.com/43968bCi6y84220670xrlwr33P4359Jm55G101adMWc > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > 2010 LowerMyBills, Inc. > 6701 W. Center Drive, Suite 300; Los Angeles, CA 90045 > > If you no longer wish to receive our e-newsletter, follow the link below and > unsubscribe. > http://mx12.bestbrickovenbistro.com/76F6842206cy70XiPk33rNZZH435BGq955k102bKzeq > > > This offer was sent because you signed up and/or registered with us or one of > our affiliates. To stop receiving further email from OceanSyndication, please > click here > http://mx12.bestbrickovenbistro.com/8yH6bn84220670l33I435MmXYf955lH or mail > your request PO Box 7775, Unit 37310 San Francisco, CA 94120 . > OceanSyndication is a mailing service and is not affiliated with, sponsored > by or endorsed by any of the listed products or retailers. > > > -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:47:52 +0300, > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> No, the spam filter will be *in addition* to whatever is there >> already. If the list remains subscription-only, there's still spam >> that goes through, the spam filter will help. And if the lists is >> moderated, the spam filter would help go through the moderation queue. > > In the current world, you get significantly less spam by restricting posts > to subscribers. Unless your list is big enough to be worth the trouble > of spammers to subscribe. In the future this might be different, but for > now requiring subscription is a legitimate antispam technique. > >> Again, that's speculation. Most of the mailing lists I'm subscribed >> to, allow non-subscribers to post, and there are as many occasional >> posters who don't have a clue there, than here. So again, I don't >> think it's sensible to apply prejudices based on the people's >> subscription, which is very simple to do. > > That probably has more to do with the kinds of lists you use rather than > being a general principle. > >>> Not on all lists. Moderators often lack the time. I speak as one such, >>> and some posts simply don't make it because they have waited too long >>> for attention. It is not scalable. If the list is very active, the >>> problem gets far worse. >> Again, other lists manage just fine. Speculation. > > Are you volunteering to do the work to make that happen? Having run mailing lists and ISP size (6M users) news servers, I can suggest that the practice of hand moderation of non-subscribers and new subscribers results in a manageable read load. And auto-passing a reply to a previous post where the reply doesn't have top posting can reduce it farther. Just a thought. -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote: > No, the spam filter will be *in addition* to whatever is there > already. If the list remains subscription-only, there's still spam > that goes through, the spam filter will help. And if the lists is > moderated, the spam filter would help go through the moderation queue. > > The burden would not be on the subscribers, in fact they would receive > less spam. > >> | > Subscriptions is a step in minimising crap being posted to the list >> | > (whether that be spam, or simply tossers who'll post rubbish to lists, >> | > just to spout crap from their fingers). >> | >> | Really? So I don't subscribe I'm a looser whose posts are not welcome? >> >> Well, if you don't subscribe you're too lazy to meet the very low bar to >> entry to the discussion; maybe you're not desirable. This isn't so in >> your case, since you're clearing prepared to argue cogently for your >> point of view. But for the many many spammers it _is_ the case that they >> are not welcome. > > Again, that's speculation. Most of the mailing lists I'm subscribed > to, allow non-subscribers to post, and there are as many occasional > posters who don't have a clue there, than here. So again, I don't > think it's sensible to apply prejudices based on the people's > subscription, which is very simple to do. > On a closely related topic, things are occasionally posted here with cc to other lists. A reply-to-all results in a mailbox full of replies ranging from "will be hand moderated when we feel like it," through "you are not a subscriber and can not post," to one list which says something like "you are an evil scum sucking spammer and will be put on a list to reject for all lists at this site." That, and the filter checks the "to" address and not the "reply-to" so I have to hand mung things from any machine here other than my desktop, but which anyone reading the list can do, subscribed or not. Okay, mail on this list is not perfect, now unless someone has a fix which can go at the server level, could we close the topic? I didn't reply until the indentation of reply levels got so deep I can't read the subject. :-( -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
Felipe Contreras wrote: >> Prior to today the list was set to discard posts from non-members. >> This setting was made before any of the current list admins were >> present AFAIK. I believe that sending a rejection is the more >> courteous setting, and we have changed this now. > > Yes, that's better. Thanks. Sorry to flip-flop, but we found in testing that Mailman (quite unfortunately) includes the original message in the rejection notice. This makes it a very nice spam forwarding system. So back to discard the setting goes. :( I did add a note to the listinfo page stating that subscription is required to post. -- ToddOpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~ It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome K. Jerome pgpSIFIkJ2aAr.pgp Description: PGP signature -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:47:52 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > No, the spam filter will be *in addition* to whatever is there > already. If the list remains subscription-only, there's still spam > that goes through, the spam filter will help. And if the lists is > moderated, the spam filter would help go through the moderation queue. In the current world, you get significantly less spam by restricting posts to subscribers. Unless your list is big enough to be worth the trouble of spammers to subscribe. In the future this might be different, but for now requiring subscription is a legitimate antispam technique. > Again, that's speculation. Most of the mailing lists I'm subscribed > to, allow non-subscribers to post, and there are as many occasional > posters who don't have a clue there, than here. So again, I don't > think it's sensible to apply prejudices based on the people's > subscription, which is very simple to do. That probably has more to do with the kinds of lists you use rather than being a general principle. > > Not on all lists. Moderators often lack the time. I speak as one such, > > and some posts simply don't make it because they have waited too long > > for attention. It is not scalable. If the list is very active, the > > problem gets far worse. > > Again, other lists manage just fine. Speculation. Are you volunteering to do the work to make that happen? > No. Imagine you have a discussion with a group of people, most of them > are not subscribed to the ml. Then you think; hey, why not Cc the > fedora-user mailing list and see what they think? Well, the Reply-To > munging will override the Cc and make all the replies go to the ml > *only*. reply-to does not override the cc header address list, it overrides the from header address list. If you do reply to recipients or reply to all, addresses from the original cc list should be copied. > Really? Why? Are you speculating again? Where's the evidence? > > I have never seen a single person complain about it. People have complained about it on this list. I don't think I have heard anyone complain about not getting separate copies. The closest is my mentioning, that I sometimes find it useful, since being explicitly copied on a message makes me more likely to pay attention to it. > Also, you are just assuming that whatever setup this mailing list has > is what is often wanted. Another possibility is that people really > didn't think too much about it. Many of the Fedora lists are set up so that if the list sees a a subscriber's address in the recipient address list, it doesn't send them a message through the list. They only get the (presumed) direct copy of the message. You can actually use this as a way to send a message to the list without someone particular on the list getting a copy. This is a per user, per list setting. Personally, I disable it as I prefer to handle the separate copies on my end. > > | Fedora lists, that information is lost thanks to the Reply-To munging. > > > > Bah. Nothing need to use it. > > Maybe not you, but other people want to know when the mail was sent to > the mailing list, or both to the mailing list and them. I think what he might have been trying convey, is that today virtually no one uses a reply-to address different than the from address. That harks back to the days of separate networks and the return path for email might need to be different than the forward path was. > Impossible. You can't filter mail that was addressed to you and the > mailing list. If the Reply-To header is munged, the mail will appear > to be addressed to the ml only. That isn't true. You are assuming that everyone is using reply to sender to reply to list messages. reply-to munging allows people to use reply to sender to reply to the list, but it isn't mandated. > When Reply-To is munged, you don't have the "reply to all" option, > only "reply". And I said, the Cc is overridden. This is incorrect. reply to all still works except that the sender's address isn't included. You still get addresses from the cc list. While you are correct that allowing non-subscribers to post would be of some benefit, in particular yours. You are dismissing the real benefit from not confusing other posters by using reply-to munging. In a perfect world everyone would know the difference between reply to sender, reply to list, reply to recipients and reply to all and use the one they really wanted. But unfortunately we don't live in that world and trade offs need to be weighed when configuring a list. For many Fedora lists, the decision was made to do reply-to munging because it is felt to be the best for the list. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:05:33 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > So if anything, Reply-To munging would cause more private mail go to > the mailing list (i.e. I typed 'r' in mutt, not 'g', but the mail went > to the ml!) That's pretty much what I said. But it has to be balanced against against people who refuse to learn the difference between the various ways to reply and will accidentally send replies privately by mistake. If there are enough of those (and I am not arguing that there are for any Fedora lists), then it makes sense for people to do it. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 22:24 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > Anyway, if non-subscribers are not welcome, then I guess I'll just > refrain from posting here just like everybody else, even when I'm > asked to do it on Fedora's bugzilla. Ah, so the hundreds of people who regularly contribute here are all a figment of my imagination? One point that hasn't been mentioned: Fedora is an *experimental* distro. The people using are are assumed to know that and to be up to communicating about problems and solutions. If you only want to post a single question and don't monitor the list on a regular basis, I have to ask if you should really be using Fedora at all. I regard that as sufficient justification for the must-subscribe policy. poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On 06/07/2010 08:47, Frank Murphy wrote: > On 05/07/10 23:16, Thomas Taylor wrote: >> --snip-- >> >> And that attitude is going to make new linux users who have questions feel >> unwanted on the list! OK sure, go head over the OpenBSD mailing list, sit there for a week then come back here and say it's unfriendly. This Fedora list is too friendly in my opinion. The amount of crap that goes on here is rediulous and the amount of people who really cannot even be bothered to search the internet and the archives before posting borders on annoying. This is the friendliest list I've come across -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 20:13 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > Fact: the current system doesn't allow cross-posting Nothing in the current system prevents cross-posting. It's explicitly discouraged by the list Guidelines, but as we know some people do it (and usually get jumped on). The rationale is that you should decide where best to send your query and send it only to that list. Cross-posting makes it all but impossible to keep threads coherent when multiple replies appear from different lists, and not everyone is seeing the same conversation. If the query doesn't get a satisfactory answer, by all means make another query on a different list (often people will tell you which list is more appropriate). I've done this several times and don't see the problem. poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On 05/07/10 23:16, Thomas Taylor wrote: >--snip-- > > And that attitude is going to make new linux users who have questions feel > unwanted on the list! Not at all, I remember when fdisk sounded like a swear word to myself. I subscribed, and the very fact of subscribing made me "newbie" fell like there was a belonging. The Fedora lists are VERY active and all those posts can > be somewhat intimidating to linux newbies > No more so then windows lists to windows newbies and, they too prefer opt in. I was one, once. -- Regards, Frank Murphy UTF_8 Encoded Friend of Fedora -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On 06/07/10 05:24, Tim wrote: > > The list becomes a potentially *large* source of spam, when rejecting > mail to a third party. Who can then report "list" for spamming them. -- Regards, Frank Murphy UTF_8 Encoded Friend of Fedora -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote: > On 05Jul2010 20:02, Felipe Contreras wrote: > | On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Tim wrote: > | > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 14:57 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > | >> In order to do that I have to subscribe, which takes more than a few > | >> bounces, and that's the problem. > | > > | > Something wrong with *your* mail, then, if there's any bouncing. If you > | > don't actually meaning mail bounces, then you're using the wrong > | > terminology. > | > | I mean that there are many steps involved, go to this page, fill this, > | wait for that, reply here, etc. > > The procedure of: fill in the joining form, reply to a confirmation > email is a standard step in most mailing lists these days. But the actual steps you have to do are different depending on the list manager; majordomo is different than mailman. > It serves two > purposes: it catches misspelt email addresses (because the confirmation > email fails) and it rejects most spam robots (because they don't process > the confirmation email, and generally don't provide anything but lies in > email address fields anyway). > > If there were no spammers and no misconfigured user mail clients and no > misfilled forms then this step would not be necessary. But it is because > is so greatly reduces trouble. Yes, but again; other mailing lists manage just fine without requiring subscription. > | >> Public mailing lists should receive mail from *anybody*; if the poster > | >> is not subscribed, then the message should go through moderation. This > | >> is the truly open way. > | > > | > No thanks. If you want groups full of spam, there's usenet for that. > | > | There's filters for that. If your current filter doesn't work, switch. > | bogofilter maybe? > > Gah! NO. > > This is the standard answer of the spammers too. It is the difference > between "opt-in" and "opt-out" junk mail. Advertisers always argue that > they should be free to put people on their mailing lists and that people > should opt-out when they get the junk. This places the burden on every > individual receiver of the mail, and is unreasonable. No, the spam filter will be *in addition* to whatever is there already. If the list remains subscription-only, there's still spam that goes through, the spam filter will help. And if the lists is moderated, the spam filter would help go through the moderation queue. The burden would not be on the subscribers, in fact they would receive less spam. > | > Subscriptions is a step in minimising crap being posted to the list > | > (whether that be spam, or simply tossers who'll post rubbish to lists, > | > just to spout crap from their fingers). > | > | Really? So I don't subscribe I'm a looser whose posts are not welcome? > > Well, if you don't subscribe you're too lazy to meet the very low bar to > entry to the discussion; maybe you're not desirable. This isn't so in > your case, since you're clearing prepared to argue cogently for your > point of view. But for the many many spammers it _is_ the case that they > are not welcome. Again, that's speculation. Most of the mailing lists I'm subscribed to, allow non-subscribers to post, and there are as many occasional posters who don't have a clue there, than here. So again, I don't think it's sensible to apply prejudices based on the people's subscription, which is very simple to do. > | And if some random guy manages to subscribe (which according to a > | previous post it's easy), then it's post is worthwhile? > > It means they've made an effort: they are probably not a spammer and > probably not a robot and _are_ probably more motivated to participate in > a valuable way. So yes, _probably_ they are more worthwhile. The correlation between membership and worthwhileness is very week at best. Again, the person can subscribe, troll, and leave. > | I don't think so. Also, how do other big guy mailing lists manage > | without enforcing subscription? Looser posts are ignored... easy. > > Really? I've run my share of lists. I will _never_ willingly run a list that > doesn't require people to subscribe to participate . > > | > Though I notice that the > | > subscription process hasn't stopped a couple of spammers in the last few > | > days. > | > | Exactly. That's what spam filters are for. > > They need to run at the end user, and the end users are varied. > And the burden is unreasonable. No, I'm talking about the *server*. > If you argue that the filters should run at the list end, well the > subscribe-to-post rule _is_ a spam filter. And you're objecting to it. Again, a filter that doesn't seem to be enough. > | > If the list was moderated in the way you propose, moderators would spend > | > all their spare time checking new messages, and it'd be ages before your > | > post got through. > | > | No, it takes time, but eventually it gets posted. I do this on many lists. > > Not on all lists. Moderators often lack the time. I speak as one such, > an
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On 07/05/2010 11:07 PM, Tom H wrote: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Thomas Taylor wrote: >> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:24:08 -0400 >> Tom H wrote: >> This way when a non-subscriber posts something, he doesn't have to add the "Please CC me as I'm not in the mailing list"; it will happen automatically. >>> I couldn't disagree more. >>> >>> Posting to the list: If someone wants to benefit from a list, the >>> least that he/she should do is subscribe. I delete systematically any >>> email with "please cc me as I'm not subscribed to the list". >> And that attitude is going to make new linux users who have questions feel >> unwanted on the list! The Fedora lists are VERY active and all those posts >> can >> be somewhat intimidating to linux newbies > Newbies are welcome but should subscribe like anyone else. When I > started using and supporting Solaris, I subscribed to lists where I > neither understood the question nor the answers... Yup! Same here. You gotta pull yourself up by your own bootstaps. Posting to a list by subscription is good citizenship! -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Thomas Taylor wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:24:08 -0400 > Tom H wrote: > >> > This way when a non-subscriber posts something, he doesn't have to add >> > the "Please CC me as I'm not in the mailing list"; it will happen >> > automatically. >> >> I couldn't disagree more. >> >> Posting to the list: If someone wants to benefit from a list, the >> least that he/she should do is subscribe. I delete systematically any >> email with "please cc me as I'm not subscribed to the list". > > And that attitude is going to make new linux users who have questions feel > unwanted on the list! The Fedora lists are VERY active and all those posts > can > be somewhat intimidating to linux newbies Newbies are welcome but should subscribe like anyone else. When I started using and supporting Solaris, I subscribed to lists where I neither understood the question nor the answers... -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 15:29:44 -0400, > Tom H wrote: >> >> It is much less problematic for "reply" to reply to the list, >> especially if changing that behavior is solely meant to help those who >> don't want to subscribe to it... > > Typically accidentally sending a message intended for a single person to a > list by mistake has a higher cost than do the reverse. Depending on the > ratio of the two mistakes for a given group it may make sense to do reply > munging. When Reply-To munging is off; it's easy from the MUA to choose between single reply, and reply to all. When it's on, then *all* the mail goes to the mailing list by default. So if anything, Reply-To munging would cause more private mail go to the mailing list (i.e. I typed 'r' in mutt, not 'g', but the mail went to the ml!) -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Genes MailLists wrote: >> What about allowing subscribers of f...@lists.f.o to be allowed to post >> to b...@lists.f.o. > > That would help only if Reply-To wasn't munged. > > Otherwise when somebody replies from b...@lists.f.o the reply would > only go to that ml, so the non-subscriber and f...@lists.f.o wouldn't > receive the mail back. I understood Gene's suggestion differently. If you are subscribed to f.o's users list, you can post to f.o's packaging list. You would still have to be cc'd or read the archives to see the replies. That suggestion doesn't address the laziness and lack of respect exhibited by an unsubscribed poster... -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Tom H wrote: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Felipe Contreras > wrote: >> Also, what happens if I choose to stay subscribed, but decide to turn >> mail delivery off? Well, I can send mails, but I will not get the >> replies. >> >> So no, the drawbacks of Reply-To munging are not limited to non-subscribers. > > If you subscribe to a list but opt not to receive emails from that > list, you are not a member of that list's community and your desires > and needs should not be catered to. I think we have different definitions of community. There's definitely a Fedora community, but no fedora-users, or fedora-games, fedora-libguestfs, etc.; those are *mailing lists*. Balkanizing communities based on which mailing lists the people are subscribed sounds to me like a stupid idea. It's in Fedora's best interest to have a community as unified as possible. Or to put it another perspective; I think we only loose if fedora-devel ppl say: oh, you are from fedora-games, you don't belong here, we don't care about what you have to say. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Genes MailLists wrote: > What about allowing subscribers of f...@lists.f.o to be allowed to post > to b...@lists.f.o. That would help only if Reply-To wasn't munged. Otherwise when somebody replies from b...@lists.f.o the reply would only go to that ml, so the non-subscriber and f...@lists.f.o wouldn't receive the mail back. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: > You certainly would have had your answer by now. I think you've now > wasted time/effort on an extremely simple irritation (to you) that isn't > going to change. This is not about my problem; it's about other people not having to go through the same. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
Felipe Contreras: >>> Public mailing lists should receive mail from *anybody*; if the poster >>> is not subscribed, then the message should go through moderation. This >>> is the truly open way. Tim: >> No thanks. If you want groups full of spam, there's usenet for that. Felipe Contreras: > There's filters for that. If your current filter doesn't work, switch. > bogofilter maybe? There's subscription control for that... It works quite well. Do you know how many spams a day I get? About five, and without any anti-spam programs, at all. I don't intend to run yet more software because you're lazy. >> Subscriptions is a step in minimising crap being posted to the list >> (whether that be spam, or simply tossers who'll post rubbish to lists, >> just to spout crap from their fingers). > Really? So I don't subscribe I'm a looser whose posts are not welcome? > And if some random guy manages to subscribe (which according to a > previous post it's easy), then it's post is worthwhile? I didn't say it was easy, but a few spammers do get in. If you drop all restrictions, loads will get in. Subscription is a simple and effective way to stop them, instead of playing the losing game of spam management, with all the false positives and all the false negatives that they all have, and always will have. By the way. Loose - the opposite of tight. Lose - the opposite of win. I'm so sick of people getting that wrong. That's a third year primary school language mistake. This is a community not a helpline, we're not all here just to solve the problems of hit-and-run question askers. We expect participation. That's the price that you pay for asking for help. >> If the list was moderated in the way you propose, moderators would spend >> all their spare time checking new messages, and it'd be ages before your >> post got through. > No, it takes time, but eventually it gets posted. I do this on many lists. And you were complaining about the time it took to get a message through? Seconds or minutes for subscription, versus hours or days for moderation. You can't seriously expect us to be believe that's better. At this point I'm beginning to feel you're trying to get the list opened up so you can get spam going through it. >> The list works fine. Messages go to the list, and the list's address is >> in the "to" field, where it belongs. > The initial mail might have the ml is "To", but might also be in "Cc". I've only seen that where people have posted to the old list (hosted by Redhat), and they've been forwarded through to this one (hosted by Fedora). I can imagine it happening if some dingbat sends a daftly constructed message to the list, but I don't ever recall seeing that. > But the later posts wouldn't if the rules were right. I would be > sending this mail to you, as you were the originator, and the mailing > list would be kept in Cc. That's not an automated mailing list, that's a manual one. And that's not the spirit of this list (mostly messages in public). If you want a list that works in another way, go elsewhere. Don't romp in as a newcomer, and re-arrange the furniture to suit yourself. > This has another advantage. Many clients, like Gmail, do smart thing > where the user is in the To field (or Cc for that matter), but on > Fedora lists, that information is lost thanks to the Reply-To munging. The messages ARE to the list, so there's nothing wrong with the list address being there. If you really want CCing, add your address to the reply-to header. Your messages will go to the list, and come through with the list and your address in the reply-to field. You'll get a private copy, too. >> Lists that don't put themselves in the reply-to end up with very few >> posts coming back to the list. You see a list full of the same >> questions being asked over and over, because there's no replies being >> made in public. > You are speculating, and doing it wrong. No, I'm not, and not... I've been participating in mailing lists and news groups for over a decade. I described exactly what I've seen happen. It's clear the lack of experience is yours. > Most of the mailing lists I'm subscribed to don't munge the Reply-To > header, and all the threads are kept in the ml (in fact multiple > mailing lists as cross-posting works). Now there's a presumption... You have NO idea of what messages were sent outside of those mailing lists. You can only see the ones that went to it. >> You can still reply to the right address. A default reply will come >> back to the list, where it's supposed to (for this list). You can opt >> to reply to the person by replying to their *from* address, because the >> poster's address is in the place that it ought to be, the "from" >> address, because that's where the message came from. > MUA's don't do that. Reply-To overrides everything. If Reply-To wasn't > overridden, there would be the option to reply to the person, or reply > to everyone (including the ml).
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On 07/05/2010 09:24 PM, Tim wrote: > Todd Zullinger: >>> Prior to today the list was set to discard posts from non-members. >>> This setting was made before any of the current list admins were >>> present AFAIK. I believe that sending a rejection is the more >>> courteous setting, and we have changed this now. > Andre Robatino: >> Won't this generate backscatter? >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_%28e-mail%29 > I think it would. Most spams have forged headers, and rather than being > complete faked addresses, they're addresses belonging to someone else. > It's an old trick to spam someone so that rejects become spam to yet > another person. > > It'd be different if you could reject during the SMTP stage, and a > poster's attempt would fail during the attempt, not after. But very > very few people make a direct connection to the end SMTP server, so that > doesn't work any more. They send to their ISP, it accepts, and forwards > on. SMTP rejection is too late, by then. > > The list becomes a potentially *large* source of spam, when rejecting > mail to a third party. > It seems to me we have discussed this to death. Already there is too much noise about this very bad idea. Let's leave it at that and move on to fedora and linux issues and not about how this list is managed. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
Todd Zullinger: >> Prior to today the list was set to discard posts from non-members. >> This setting was made before any of the current list admins were >> present AFAIK. I believe that sending a rejection is the more >> courteous setting, and we have changed this now. Andre Robatino: > Won't this generate backscatter? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_%28e-mail%29 I think it would. Most spams have forged headers, and rather than being complete faked addresses, they're addresses belonging to someone else. It's an old trick to spam someone so that rejects become spam to yet another person. It'd be different if you could reject during the SMTP stage, and a poster's attempt would fail during the attempt, not after. But very very few people make a direct connection to the end SMTP server, so that doesn't work any more. They send to their ISP, it accepts, and forwards on. SMTP rejection is too late, by then. The list becomes a potentially *large* source of spam, when rejecting mail to a third party. -- [...@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 22:54 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: > I don't think the downside of having the alias from the old list > outweighs the benefits. And, we may be able to mitigate the downside > with some smarts on the lists.fedoraproject.org side as well. It's > just not been enough of a problem to warrant spending a lot of time to > look at, for me anyway. If one were to do some mail mangling to remove that, I'd also suggest eliminating any followup-to headers that gmane inserts when it sends replies back to this list. For people unsubscribed to them (myself included), whenever I hit reply on a message that came here through them, the reply is preselected to be a usenet post to them, instead of a reply to this list. And the posting fails. It's just bad form for them to subvert the list with their posting, and they should remove it on the way out of their gateway. Failing that, we could remove it on the way in. -- [...@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
Ed Greshko wrote: > I think the suggestion was more to eliminate it as well as any > redirection since enough time has elapsed since the move to > fedoraproject.org. So, kill the alias as well as it has outlived > its usefulness. I don't think that's likely to happen. At the least, it's not something any individual list owners can do as it requires the folks with access to the redhat.com mailman instance. I don't think the downside of having the alias from the old list outweighs the benefits. And, we may be able to mitigate the downside with some smarts on the lists.fedoraproject.org side as well. It's just not been enough of a problem to warrant spending a lot of time to look at, for me anyway. -- ToddOpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~ I refuse to spend my life worrying about what I eat. There is no pleasure worth foregoing just for an extra three years in the geriatric ward. -- John Mortimer pgpJGN7cjPvqM.pgp Description: PGP signature -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On 05Jul2010 18:25, Felipe Contreras wrote: [...snip...] | > (2) Most posts provoke discussion. If the original poster is not | > subscribed to the list, they will probably get dropped from the | > discussion at some point, and not realize the full benefit of the | > discussion. Also, it's likely that they will at some point respond | > privately to a post in the discussion, leaving an incomplete record for | > the subscribers and the list archives. | | No, they will not. When mailing lists don't munge the Reply-To header, | everybody is forced to "reply to all", which means the Cc list is | automatically kept. Demonstably false. My mother routinely forgets reply-to-all and sends directly to me when a wider audience is suitable. And this happens with list email as well. | Also, you seem to think that the mailing list settings prevent people | from doing what they want. That's not the case, if I want to reply to | you privately, I can do that regardless of the settings. Wanna see? And the same for the reply-to. This works both ways. -- Cameron Simpson DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ There is a chasm of carbon and silicon the software can't bridge - Haiku Error Messages http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/chal/1998/02/10chal2.html -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On 05Jul2010 20:02, Felipe Contreras wrote: | On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Tim wrote: | > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 14:57 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: | >> In order to do that I have to subscribe, which takes more than a few | >> bounces, and that's the problem. | > | > Something wrong with *your* mail, then, if there's any bouncing. If you | > don't actually meaning mail bounces, then you're using the wrong | > terminology. | | I mean that there are many steps involved, go to this page, fill this, | wait for that, reply here, etc. The procedure of: fill in the joining form, reply to a confirmation email is a standard step in most mailing lists these days. It serves two purposes: it catches misspelt email addresses (because the confirmation email fails) and it rejects most spam robots (because they don't process the confirmation email, and generally don't provide anything but lies in email address fields anyway). If there were no spammers and no misconfigured user mail clients and no misfilled forms then this step would not be necessary. But it is because is so greatly reduces trouble. | Terminology is a field of study. Bounce is a word in the English | language. I'm not a native English speaker, so I couldn't come up with | a better word to describe the feeling of bumping from one task to the | next. | | You cannot expect everyone to come up with the perfect words, and I | thought that my sentence was understandable enough. If you have a | better suggestion, I'm open for it. Regrettably, "bounce" has a specific meaning in the email context: it is email that could not be delivered, and that generates a reply message to that effect from the mail systems involved. The automatic reply message is called the "bounce". So your unfortunate (though undertandable) choice of word because confusing in the context. I find that when I have this situation (for me, posting in a forum/list where I'm not up to speed with the terminology since I have no non-English ability sufficient for conversation) I will use a whole phrase or even a whole sentence to provide more context for what I mean. For example, here you could have said "In order to do that I have to subscribe, and spent some timing bouncing from one task to another to do so, and that's the problem." That's normal English usage of the term. "bounces" is a noun and implies a more concrete meaning. The downside is the difficulty of know which particular terms you are using may have a specific meaning in the discussion domain. | >> Public mailing lists should receive mail from *anybody*; if the poster | >> is not subscribed, then the message should go through moderation. This | >> is the truly open way. | > | > No thanks. If you want groups full of spam, there's usenet for that. | | There's filters for that. If your current filter doesn't work, switch. | bogofilter maybe? Gah! NO. This is the standard answer of the spammers too. It is the difference between "opt-in" and "opt-out" junk mail. Advertisers always argue that they should be free to put people on their mailing lists and that people should opt-out when they get the junk. This places the burden on every individual receiver of the mail, and is unreasonable. So too with requiring end users to need arbitrary filtering technology at their end; they should not need to make the effort and in many cases a sufficient effort is not feasible for them (varying mail tools, varying expertise, varying interfaces). Imagine the poor user of a web mail interface - they can't attach arbitrary filters at all. Shall they change their entire mode of interaction to deal with the fallout from _your_ desire that they should receive (at the pre-filter stage) all the junk in the world? | > Subscriptions is a step in minimising crap being posted to the list | > (whether that be spam, or simply tossers who'll post rubbish to lists, | > just to spout crap from their fingers). | | Really? So I don't subscribe I'm a looser whose posts are not welcome? Well, if you don't subscribe you're too lazy to meet the very low bar to entry to the discussion; maybe you're not desirable. This isn't so in your case, since you're clearing prepared to argue cogently for your point of view. But for the many many spammers it _is_ the case that they are not welcome. | And if some random guy manages to subscribe (which according to a | previous post it's easy), then it's post is worthwhile? It means they've made an effort: they are probably not a spammer and probably not a robot and _are_ probably more motivated to participate in a valuable way. So yes, _probably_ they are more worthwhile. | I don't think so. Also, how do other big guy mailing lists manage | without enforcing subscription? Looser posts are ignored... easy. Really? I've run my share of lists. I will _never_ willingly run a list that doesn't require people to subscribe to participate . | > Though I notice that the | > subscription process hasn't stopped a couple of spam
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On 07/06/2010 06:05 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote: > Genes MailLists wrote: > >> Maybe its time to shut the old list off - will avoid some dup posts >> too! >> > The old list is shut off. There is simply an alias @redhat.com to > us...@lists.fedoraproject.org. > > I think the suggestion was more to eliminate it as well as any redirection since enough time has elapsed since the move to fedoraproject.org. So, kill the alias as well as it has outlived its usefulness. -- Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no. -- J.R.R. Tolkien 葛斯克 愛德華 / 台北市八德路四段 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:24:08 -0400 Tom H wrote: > > This way when a non-subscriber posts something, he doesn't have to add > > the "Please CC me as I'm not in the mailing list"; it will happen > > automatically. > > I couldn't disagree more. > > Posting to the list: If someone wants to benefit from a list, the > least that he/she should do is subscribe. I delete systematically any > email with "please cc me as I'm not subscribed to the list". > And that attitude is going to make new linux users who have questions feel unwanted on the list! The Fedora lists are VERY active and all those posts can be somewhat intimidating to linux newbies > Replying to the list: I want the lust to "mangle" the headers so that > I can hit "reply" and have the email go the list and not to the person > to whom I am replying. -- Tom Taylor - retired penguin linux counter: 263467 openSuSE 11.3-RC1 x86_64 Fedora 13 KDE 4.4.3, FF 3.6.4 claws-mail 3.7.6 registered linux user 263467 linxt-At-comcast-DoT-net -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
Genes MailLists wrote: > Maybe its time to shut the old list off - will avoid some dup posts > too! The old list is shut off. There is simply an alias @redhat.com to us...@lists.fedoraproject.org. -- ToddOpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~ Cover a war in a place where you can't drink beer or talk to a woman? Hell no!" -- Hunter S. Thompson pgpBncRLwkk9S.pgp Description: PGP signature -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On 07/05/2010 05:39 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote: o times the ml) > > This comes from some folks sending mail to the old > fedora-l...@redhat.com address. I've not looked closely to see > whether we can fix that up. It would likely take a little work at the > system level on the mailman server and possibly coordinating with the > redhat.com mailman admins. (The Fedora Project now hosts our own > mailman server, rather than using the same setup as Red Hat.) > > Maybe its time to shut the old list off - will avoid some dup posts too! -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
Felipe Contreras wrote: > Right, but I wonder if I send a mail to all the *-owner lists. Maybe > the Reply-To would be munged and the threads will diverge. The *-owner addresses are simply aliases. They are not mailing lists themselves. > I think it's much safer just to grep for all the admins and send a > mail directly. Please don't. While I can't stop you from doing so, I personally would find it annoying if everyone that wanted to contact me with some business related to the users list did so by direct email. It makes filtering mail difficult for one. > Ok, I don't mean to offend, but what is there to do for a ml if not > moderate messages? Changing the settings? That's not really much > work at all IMO. Yeah, the users list is one of the easier lists. Other lists, like the websites list, where webmas...@fedoraproject.org mail goes, take more effort precisely because they allow non-members to post. (And, for the websites list, not doing so would be completely wrong.) For this list, it's much more of a debatable position. > In any case, there has been only speculation about the amount of > moderation that would need to be done, right? In my experience it's > pretty easy to spot spam mail, so even without spam filtering I > think the job of moderating should not be that hard. For the websites list it ranges around 20 or so messages a day. I have some handy scripts to help automate it as much as I can, but it still takes some time. Adding more, higher volume lists would only add to that time. Worse though, IMO, is that it introduces a delay into the communication while folks who's messages are moderated wait for myself or another admin to check and clear the message. I think it's preferable to simply reject non-member posts, which lets the sender know the list policy requires subscription. The previous setting of discarding such mail was a mistake, again IMO. > You could put me as moderator to give a try, there can't be much > damage to be done. In the worst case I would discard good mail as > spam, but that's what the system has been doing all along up to today. > If it really seems to be too much work, then the exercise can be > cancelled. Something to be discussed with the other list admins/moderators. I'm not sold on the idea of making list posting open, but I'd be willing to try it and see what effect it had on the moderation queue. Thank you for your offer. :) > BTW. I'm noticing something wrong in the Reply-To header of this mail > (two times the ml) This comes from some folks sending mail to the old fedora-l...@redhat.com address. I've not looked closely to see whether we can fix that up. It would likely take a little work at the system level on the mailman server and possibly coordinating with the redhat.com mailman admins. (The Fedora Project now hosts our own mailman server, rather than using the same setup as Red Hat.) -- ToddOpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~ Good judgment comes with experience. Unfortunately, the experience usually comes from bad judgment. pgpLXnABsxj3n.pgp Description: PGP signature -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 20:44:59 +, Andre Robatino wrote: > Todd Zullinger pobox.com> writes: > > > Prior to today the list was set to discard posts from non-members. > > This setting was made before any of the current list admins were > > present AFAIK. I believe that sending a rejection is the more > > courteous setting, and we have changed this now. > > Won't this generate backscatter? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_%28e-mail%29 If there isn't amplification and if the sender can't send spam content back using the method then it isn't that big of a deal and the costs of that should be balanced against the costs of people sending legitimate messages going into a black hole rather than being told that the need to subscribe. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 14:57:33 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Public mailing lists should receive mail from *anybody*; if the poster > is not subscribed, then the message should go through moderation. This > is the truly open way. There are costs in doing that. Either in increased spam or increased workload for moderators. Some Fedora lists do allow for moderators to approve messages that have been held. I think it is the minority of lists that both hold the posts and have good moderation. > Orthogonal to this is that the mailing lists should not mingle with > "Reply-To"; they should leave the To and Cc fields intact, so that the > MUA can reply to the right addresses. See: > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html I'm with you on that, but currently the people in charge have decided that that is a better way for this list to function. I am pretty sure they are aware of the arguments, so that a long argument about this setting isn't going to be beneficial. People that don't like that can strip the reply-to headers locally. That's what I do so that my reply button works correctly. (As much as is possible after the real reply-to headers have been stripped.) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
Todd Zullinger pobox.com> writes: > Prior to today the list was set to discard posts from non-members. > This setting was made before any of the current list admins were > present AFAIK. I believe that sending a rejection is the more > courteous setting, and we have changed this now. Won't this generate backscatter? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_%28e-mail%29 -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 15:29:44 -0400, Tom H wrote: > > It is much less problematic for "reply" to reply to the list, > especially if changing that behavior is solely meant to help those who > don't want to subscribe to it... Typically accidentally sending a message intended for a single person to a list by mistake has a higher cost than do the reverse. Depending on the ratio of the two mistakes for a given group it may make sense to do reply munging. Also if people use mail-followup-to they can keep people (at least those using reasonable email clients) from sending them duplicate messages when desired. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Tom H wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Felipe Contreras >> wrote: >>> The problem is not in the system. >> >> The sender has to realise that he/she has sent a private email! LOL > > Yeah, so? It's a user mistake, it's up to the user how to deal with it. One of the roles of an administrator is to help users... >> It is much less problematic for "reply" to reply to the list, >> especially if changing that behavior is solely meant to help those who >> don't want to subscribe to it... > > No, as I said before, the Reply-To problem is *orthogonal*. > > See, I'm _subscribed_, right? > > When I search for 'list:users.lists.fedoraproject.org > to:felipe.contreras' I don't find anything (well, I actually I see one > mail because Alan Cox ignored the Reply-To header). > > OTOH 'list:linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org to:felipe.contreras' works fine. > > Also, what happens if I choose to stay subscribed, but decide to turn > mail delivery off? Well, I can send mails, but I will not get the > replies. > > So no, the drawbacks of Reply-To munging are not limited to non-subscribers. If you subscribe to a list but opt not to receive emails from that list, you are not a member of that list's community and your desires and needs should not be catered to. To go back to debian-user, it is set up the way that you would like for the only reason that I consider acceptable (even though I disagree with it) and that is that messages that are intended to be private are not sent to the entire list (admins helping users?). 2. Many people hit "reply all" and the person they are replying to complains that he/she has received two emails. >>> >>> That's because either they are stupid or their system is stupid, and >>> their MUA is not right. >>> >>> In Feodra's case mailman is used, which has the option: >>> "Avoid duplicate copies of messages?" >> >> When someone sends an email to a person and to debian-user and that >> person is subscribed to debian-user, two emails are received, one of >> which does not go through the list server so its settings don't come >> into play. > > And that's the only mail the person will receive. The list server will > see, oh, that mail was sent directly, so I'm not going to do it again. > > Did you even read the description? > --- > Avoid duplicate copies of messages? > When you are listed explicitly in the To: or Cc: headers of a list > message, you can opt to not receive another copy from the mailing > list. Select Yes to avoid receiving copies from the mailing list; > select No to receive copies. > > If the list has member personalized messages enabled, and you elect to > receive copies, every copy will have a X-Mailman-Copy: yes header > added to it. >>> You seem to have it on by default. Problem solved. >> >> I think that you mean "the people who complain have it on by default" >> because I have never received duplicate emails, nor complained about >> them. > > No, the people who complain (if the ml uses mailman (not everyone > does)) have it *off*. > > Fedora mailing lists (or at lest this one) has it on by default; > that's why you would not see this problem (in case somebody overrides > the Reply-To header). My bad. I hadn't considered the possibility that the ml app would/could be smart enough to check the to: and cc: fields... -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On 07/06/2010 01:22 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: > >> On 07/05/2010 07:57 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >>> I took a considerable amount of time writing that email, it's not nice >>> for non-subscriber mails to just be dropped like that. Please, make >>> Fedora mailing list friendly to outsiders. >>> > >> Check your sent folder. Your masterpiece should be there. >> > You are ignoring the problem; I already lost time waiting, and I'm > sure other people have in the past. > Yes. I ignore minor irritations in life. Especially the ones I have no control over. > >> Then >> subscribe and resend. That effort will always be much quicker than >> waiting for an overworked moderator...or one who may be sleeping...to >> approve you message. >> > Quicker to get it done, but not quicker to do. > > You certainly would have had your answer by now. I think you've now wasted time/effort on an extremely simple irritation (to you) that isn't going to change. -- OKAY!! Turn on the sound ONLY for TRYNEL CARPETING FULLY-EQUIPPED R.V.'S and FLOTATION SYSTEMS!! 葛斯克 愛德華 / 台北市八德路四段 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
What about allowing subscribers of f...@lists.f.o to be allowed to post to b...@lists.f.o. The benefit of registration is the same - and it would allow an occasional cross post without subscribing ? gene/ -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 21:24 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > So you are saying that it's not proven that people that do only one > post can benefit the community? No, I'm saying that it's not proven that EVERY person that does only one post benefits the community. Not the same thing at all. The sad reality is that the vast majority of people that would want to do only one post are spammers. Requiring someone to be a subscriber is done mostly to deter spam. > Evidence? If there is such war there must be tons of it. Read the archives of just about any mailing list that has been around for longer than a month. Read the thread on this mailing list of which this message is a part. The evidence is easy to find. You may have the last word, I am done with this thread since it no longer (if it ever did) has anything to do with the topic of this mailing list. --Greg -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: >>> On the sign up page for the list: >>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>> >>> near the bottom: >>> users list run by... >> >> That's only for the 'users' mailing list. I guess I would have to >> the same for all the mailing lists and gather all the recipients =/ > > No need for that. All mailman lists on lists.fedoraproject.org (as > well as most mailman lists in general) have a convenient alias to > reach the list owners/admins. It is $listname-ow...@$domain. In this > case, it's users-ow...@lists.fedoraproject.org. In fact, that's where > the link at the bottom of the listinfo page sends mail. Right, but I wonder if I send a mail to all the *-owner lists. Maybe the Reply-To would be munged and the threads will diverge. I think it's much safer just to grep for all the admins and send a mail directly. > For reaching the site admins for a given mailman installation, you > typically use mail...@$domain, e.g. mail...@lists.fedoraproject.org. > The sitewide address is given on the main mailman page, which is also > linked in the footer of the listinfo page. Ah, thanks. >> At least Chris Tyler already replied on this thread, but sure, I'll >> try to resend the mail to them. > > Prior to today the list was set to discard posts from non-members. > This setting was made before any of the current list admins were > present AFAIK. I believe that sending a rejection is the more > courteous setting, and we have changed this now. Yes, that's better. Thanks. > Setting it to hold for moderation all messages is not likely to > happen. Even with decent spam filtering, more than enough messages > make it through that tending to the moderation queue becomes quite a > laborious task. I help tend to a number of Fedora lists and I do not > wish to greatly increase the effort needed to do so efficiently. Ok, I don't mean to offend, but what is there to do for a ml if not moderate messages? Changing the settings? That's not really much work at all IMO. In any case, there has been only speculation about the amount of moderation that would need to be done, right? In my experience it's pretty easy to spot spam mail, so even without spam filtering I think the job of moderating should not be that hard. You could put me as moderator to give a try, there can't be much damage to be done. In the worst case I would discard good mail as spam, but that's what the system has been doing all along up to today. If it really seems to be too much work, then the exercise can be cancelled. BTW. I'm noticing something wrong in the Reply-To header of this mail (two times the ml) -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Tom H wrote: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Felipe Contreras > wrote: >> The problem is not in the system. > > The sender has to realise that he/she has sent a private email! LOL Yeah, so? It's a user mistake, it's up to the user how to deal with it. > It is much less problematic for "reply" to reply to the list, > especially if changing that behavior is solely meant to help those who > don't want to subscribe to it... No, as I said before, the Reply-To problem is *orthogonal*. See, I'm _subscribed_, right? When I search for 'list:users.lists.fedoraproject.org to:felipe.contreras' I don't find anything (well, I actually I see one mail because Alan Cox ignored the Reply-To header). OTOH 'list:linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org to:felipe.contreras' works fine. Also, what happens if I choose to stay subscribed, but decide to turn mail delivery off? Well, I can send mails, but I will not get the replies. So no, the drawbacks of Reply-To munging are not limited to non-subscribers. >>> 2. Many people hit "reply all" and the person they are replying to >>> complains that he/she has received two emails. >> >> That's because either they are stupid or their system is stupid, and >> their MUA is not right. >> >> In Feodra's case mailman is used, which has the option: >> "Avoid duplicate copies of messages?" > > When someone sends an email to a person and to debian-user and that > person is subscribed to debian-user, two emails are received, one of > which does not go through the list server so its settings don't come > into play. And that's the only mail the person will receive. The list server will see, oh, that mail was sent directly, so I'm not going to do it again. Did you even read the description? --- Avoid duplicate copies of messages? When you are listed explicitly in the To: or Cc: headers of a list message, you can opt to not receive another copy from the mailing list. Select Yes to avoid receiving copies from the mailing list; select No to receive copies. If the list has member personalized messages enabled, and you elect to receive copies, every copy will have a X-Mailman-Copy: yes header added to it. --- >> You seem to have it on by default. Problem solved. > > I think that you mean "the people who complain have it on by default" > because I have never received duplicate emails, nor complained about > them. No, the people who complain (if the ml uses mailman (not everyone does)) have it *off*. Fedora mailing lists (or at lest this one) has it on by default; that's why you would not see this problem (in case somebody overrides the Reply-To header). -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Tom H wrote: >> No. I am saying that if you are not willing to subscribe, you are not, >> AFAIC, part of the community. > > So if somebody is participating in IRC, filing and solving bugs, > maintaining packages, testing packages... but doesn't subscribe to > each Fedora mailing list when he want to send some mail... that person > is not part of the community? Thanks for letting me know I'm not part > of the community, I was under the wrong impression. > > Moreover, you don't have to be part of whatever you call the community > to contribute to it. I am referring to the community formed by the Fedora users list, not any wider Fedora/Linux/national/international community. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Tom H wrote: > No. I am saying that if you are not willing to subscribe, you are not, > AFAIC, part of the community. So if somebody is participating in IRC, filing and solving bugs, maintaining packages, testing packages... but doesn't subscribe to each Fedora mailing list when he want to send some mail... that person is not part of the community? Thanks for letting me know I'm not part of the community, I was under the wrong impression. Moreover, you don't have to be part of whatever you call the community to contribute to it. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On the sign up page for the list: >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> near the bottom: >> users list run by... > > That's only for the 'users' mailing list. I guess I would have to > the same for all the mailing lists and gather all the recipients =/ No need for that. All mailman lists on lists.fedoraproject.org (as well as most mailman lists in general) have a convenient alias to reach the list owners/admins. It is $listname-ow...@$domain. In this case, it's users-ow...@lists.fedoraproject.org. In fact, that's where the link at the bottom of the listinfo page sends mail. For reaching the site admins for a given mailman installation, you typically use mail...@$domain, e.g. mail...@lists.fedoraproject.org. The sitewide address is given on the main mailman page, which is also linked in the footer of the listinfo page. > At least Chris Tyler already replied on this thread, but sure, I'll > try to resend the mail to them. Prior to today the list was set to discard posts from non-members. This setting was made before any of the current list admins were present AFAIK. I believe that sending a rejection is the more courteous setting, and we have changed this now. Setting it to hold for moderation all messages is not likely to happen. Even with decent spam filtering, more than enough messages make it through that tending to the moderation queue becomes quite a laborious task. I help tend to a number of Fedora lists and I do not wish to greatly increase the effort needed to do so efficiently. -- ToddOpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~ Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. -- Andre Gide pgpcp2cO8dIjg.pgp Description: PGP signature -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Tom H wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Felipe Contreras >> wrote: >>> Is it so much to ask for you to hit "reply to all" instead of "reply" >>> (depending on the case), so that other people can have the benefits of >>> non-munged headers? >> >> On debian-user, hitting reply sends an email back to the poster and >> there are two regular complaints. >> >> 1. Many people hit "reply" and don't send a reply to the list - and >> the recipient then forwards the unintended private email back to the >> list. > > That's a user problem. If you send an unintended private mail, you ask > the recipient to ignore it, and then send the right one to the mailing > list. > > Just like with top-posting, they should enforce against the behavior > they don't want. > > The problem is not in the system. The sender has to realise that he/she has sent a private email! LOL It is much less problematic for "reply" to reply to the list, especially if changing that behavior is solely meant to help those who don't want to subscribe to it... >> 2. Many people hit "reply all" and the person they are replying to >> complains that he/she has received two emails. > > That's because either they are stupid or their system is stupid, and > their MUA is not right. > > In Feodra's case mailman is used, which has the option: > "Avoid duplicate copies of messages?" When someone sends an email to a person and to debian-user and that person is subscribed to debian-user, two emails are received, one of which does not go through the list server so its settings don't come into play. > You seem to have it on by default. Problem solved. I think that you mean "the people who complain have it on by default" because I have never received duplicate emails, nor complained about them. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 10:12 PM, JD wrote: > On 07/05/2010 11:57 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Alan Cox wrote: Fact: the most difficult a process is to follow, the less people would follow it >>> Correct - and if that process is weeding odd emails from gigabytes of >>> off-list spam then they won't read the list. >> True, that's why care must be taken to not let that happen. A >> combination of good spam filtering and moderation seems to work fine >> on other mailing lists. > Why add the extra cost/burden on the server administrator to keep up > with spam filters? Spam creators know how to subscribe to mailing lists, someone said you already have spam. So you have to do it anyway. Probably as time goes by the need would increase. > Forget it! I am against unsubscribed posters to this list. > It will turn this list into a spam galore! Only if you are missing something that other mailing lists have... > if you this list is unfriendly, create your own. There are numnerous > free or nearly free server > accounts you can get. Then you take care of spam on your list. I already do that for a bunch of mailing lists. Not so high traffic, but I know it's doable. Anyway, if non-subscribers are not welcome, then I guess I'll just refrain from posting here just like everybody else, even when I'm asked to do it on Fedora's bugzilla. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On 07/05/2010 11:57 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Alan Cox wrote: >>> Fact: the most difficult a process is to follow, the less people would >>> follow it >> Correct - and if that process is weeding odd emails from gigabytes of >> off-list spam then they won't read the list. > True, that's why care must be taken to not let that happen. A > combination of good spam filtering and moderation seems to work fine > on other mailing lists. > Why add the extra cost/burden on the server administrator to keep up with spam filters? Forget it! I am against unsubscribed posters to this list. It will turn this list into a spam galore! if you this list is unfriendly, create your own. There are numnerous free or nearly free server accounts you can get. Then you take care of spam on your list. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Alan Cox wrote: >> Fact: the most difficult a process is to follow, the less people would >> follow it > > Correct - and if that process is weeding odd emails from gigabytes of > off-list spam then they won't read the list. True, that's why care must be taken to not let that happen. A combination of good spam filtering and moderation seems to work fine on other mailing lists. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Tom H wrote: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Felipe Contreras > wrote: >> Is it so much to ask for you to hit "reply to all" instead of "reply" >> (depending on the case), so that other people can have the benefits of >> non-munged headers? > > On debian-user, hitting reply sends an email back to the poster and > there are two regular complaints. > > 1. Many people hit "reply" and don't send a reply to the list - and > the recipient then forwards the unintended private email back to the > list. That's a user problem. If you send an unintended private mail, you ask the recipient to ignore it, and then send the right one to the mailing list. Just like with top-posting, they should enforce against the behavior they don't want. The problem is not in the system. > 2. Many people hit "reply all" and the person they are replying to > complains that he/she has received two emails. That's because either they are stupid or their system is stupid, and their MUA is not right. In Feodra's case mailman is used, which has the option: "Avoid duplicate copies of messages?" You seem to have it on by default. Problem solved. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:12 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > On 07/05/2010 01:13 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> Fact: the most difficult a process is to follow, the less people would >> follow it > > Fact: if it were too easy, spam would overwhelm everything else, and the > list would be useless. Not true: other lists manage just fine. >> Fact: a community benefits from all kinds of contribution, even from >> one-post people > > Fact: a community benefits more from people who care about > communicating, not just dumping a problem in someone else's lap. I don't see what's the point of that claim. >> Fact: the current system doesn't welcome one-time posts > > Fact: it does, if you subscribe. Subscribing makes one-time posts tedious, and quite likely many people would avoid doing them rather than subscribing (I know I would). >> Fact: the current system doesn't allow cross-posting > > Fact: This is a good thing. Focus, people! Focus! That is not a fact, that's an opinion, and one that should be enforced through policy. If there's a chance of the policy changing, the current system would make it difficult. >> Fact: the current system doesn't specify when the reply was meant for >> the receiver > > Fact: this is a problem with your mailer, not our list. What are you talking about? How can I create a filter to move this mail to my inbox, or find all mail 'list-id:users.lists.fedoraproject.org and to:me'. No matter which mailer I use, your system doesn't allow that. >> Fact: the current system doesn't allow to properly Cc people >> (non-subscribers) to a thread > > Fact: this is your *opinion* since you used the word "properly" Not an opinion, I used an adjective for brevity since I thought it was obvious, but I can specify: Fact: the current system doesn't allow to Cc people (non-subscribers) to a thread in a way that they are kept in Cc automatically by the MUAs >> I wan't aware there's a religious war about this, I just thought that >> whomever made the decision, didn't really had all the facts. > > Yet you chose facts which backed your opinion, and left out facts > which worked against you. *That* makes your post religious. > This isn't the kind of problem that gets solved with "facts" and > insults. I have not seen any *facts* against, only speculation, and opinions. Granted, the long-tail thing might be a bit of an opinion, as it's not proven, but I haven't seen any evidence against it. > This kind of problem only gets solved by people understanding > how it got the way it did, and carefully considering the ramifications > of any change (however minor), and being empowered to make those > changes. None of us are doing any of those, including you. You can see the results of those ramifications in mailing lists that already do what I'm saying. I don't see what else do you need. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Tom H wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Felipe Contreras >> wrote: >>> Orthogonal to this is that the mailing lists should not mingle with >>> "Reply-To"; they should leave the To and Cc fields intact, so that the >>> MUA can reply to the right addresses. See: >>> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html >>> >>> This way when a non-subscriber posts something, he doesn't have to add >>> the "Please CC me as I'm not in the mailing list"; it will happen >>> automatically. >> >> I couldn't disagree more. >> >> Posting to the list: If someone wants to benefit from a list, the >> least that he/she should do is subscribe. I delete systematically any >> email with "please cc me as I'm not subscribed to the list". > > So you are saying that all the people that post to the mailing list > are doing so to benefit themselves, and not to help the community? No. I am saying that if you are not willing to subscribe, you are not, AFAIC, part of the community. >> Replying to the list: I want the lust to "mangle" the headers so that >> I can hit "reply" and have the email go the list and not to the person >> to whom I am replying. > > When you hit "reply to all" the mail will be sent to the mailing list, > and the other person would receive the mail directly from you, and > will know that the mail was directed to him (as a marker in Gmail, or > mutt, etc.). Also it's nice to be able to search back mail: > 'in:linux-kernel and to:felipe.contreras' and see actual results. > > Is it so much to ask for you to hit "reply to all" instead of "reply" > (depending on the case), so that other people can have the benefits of > non-munged headers? On debian-user, hitting reply sends an email back to the poster and there are two regular complaints. 1. Many people hit "reply" and don't send a reply to the list - and the recipient then forwards the unintended private email back to the list. 2. Many people hit "reply all" and the person they are replying to complains that he/she has received two emails. So non-munged headers create more problems that they are worth. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Greg Woods wrote: > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 20:13 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> Fact: a community benefits from all kinds of contribution, even from >> one-post people > > That is an opinion, not a fact. So you are saying that it's not proven that people that do only one post can benefit the community? I don't see why that would have to be proven, it's just common sense. There's evidence behind the fact that not only there is benefit, but that most of if comes in that form (when you allow it, of course): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail Feel free provide evidence of the contrary. Until then I consider it a fact. > I happen to believe that the nature of > the post makes a difference as to whether it is beneficial to the > community. As an example, someone coming in and doing nothing but > bashing Fedora without offering any helpful suggestions as to how to > improve it is not beneficial to the community (this is not a reference > to you in any way, it is just an EXAMPLE to illustrate the point). But > this is just MY personal opinion, and I don't run this list. Huh? The fact that B doesn't cause C, doesn't mean that A doesn't cause C. >> I wan't aware there's a religious war about this, > > The "right" way to run a mailing list has been a religious war on the > Internet for at least 30 years now. In this case the term "religious > war" means there is really no proven right answer and there are strongly > held opinions on all sides. Evidence? If there is such war there must be tons of it. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Frank Murphy wrote: > On the sign up page for the list: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > near the bottom: > users list run by... That's only for the 'users' mailing list. I guess I would have to the same for all the mailing lists and gather all the recipients =/ > Maybe send an email to them with your concerns? > Pointing back to yuor original mail in the archive, > same url as above. At least Chris Tyler already replied on this thread, but sure, I'll try to resend the mail to them. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On 07/05/2010 01:13 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > Fact: the most difficult a process is to follow, the less people would follow > it Fact: if it were too easy, spam would overwhelm everything else, and the list would be useless. > Fact: a community benefits from all kinds of contribution, even from > one-post people Fact: a community benefits more from people who care about communicating, not just dumping a problem in someone else's lap. > Fact: the current system doesn't welcome one-time posts Fact: it does, if you subscribe. > Fact: the current system doesn't allow cross-posting Fact: This is a good thing. Focus, people! Focus! > Fact: the current system doesn't specify when the reply was meant for > the receiver Fact: this is a problem with your mailer, not our list. > Fact: the current system doesn't allow to properly Cc people > (non-subscribers) to a thread Fact: this is your *opinion* since you used the word "properly" > I wan't aware there's a religious war about this, I just thought that > whomever made the decision, didn't really had all the facts. Yet you chose facts which backed your opinion, and left out facts which worked against you. *That* makes your post religious. This isn't the kind of problem that gets solved with "facts" and insults. This kind of problem only gets solved by people understanding how it got the way it did, and carefully considering the ramifications of any change (however minor), and being empowered to make those changes. None of us are doing any of those, including you. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
> Fact: the most difficult a process is to follow, the less people would follow > it Correct - and if that process is weeding odd emails from gigabytes of off-list spam then they won't read the list. Alan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On 05/07/10 18:42, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Is it so much to ask for you to hit "reply to all" instead of "reply" > (depending on the case), so that other people can have the benefits of > non-munged headers? > On the sign up page for the list: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users near the bottom: users list run by... Maybe send an email to them with your concerns? Pointing back to yuor original mail in the archive, same url as above. -- Regards, Frank Murphy UTF_8 Encoded Friend of Fedora -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 20:13 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > Fact: a community benefits from all kinds of contribution, even from > one-post people That is an opinion, not a fact. I happen to believe that the nature of the post makes a difference as to whether it is beneficial to the community. As an example, someone coming in and doing nothing but bashing Fedora without offering any helpful suggestions as to how to improve it is not beneficial to the community (this is not a reference to you in any way, it is just an EXAMPLE to illustrate the point). But this is just MY personal opinion, and I don't run this list. > I wan't aware there's a religious war about this, The "right" way to run a mailing list has been a religious war on the Internet for at least 30 years now. In this case the term "religious war" means there is really no proven right answer and there are strongly held opinions on all sides. > And who is that? Do I need to subscribe to yet another mailing list to > contact him? If the list is listn...@server, the list owner is almost always listname-ow...@server, or users-ow...@lists.fedoraproject.org in this case. But if you write to them, be polite. This *is* a religious war that has been going on for decades, and the people who run the Fedora list do know what they are doing. I cannot speak for them as to whether they would be receptive to suggestions, but they probably have their own religious opinions, and I can be fairly sure that they won't be too receptive to someone who comes in and acts like he knows more about running lists than they do. Stating an opinion is one thing, doing it in a way that belittles anyone who doesn't agree is another. --Greg -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Tom H wrote: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Felipe Contreras > wrote: >> Orthogonal to this is that the mailing lists should not mingle with >> "Reply-To"; they should leave the To and Cc fields intact, so that the >> MUA can reply to the right addresses. See: >> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html >> >> This way when a non-subscriber posts something, he doesn't have to add >> the "Please CC me as I'm not in the mailing list"; it will happen >> automatically. > > I couldn't disagree more. > > Posting to the list: If someone wants to benefit from a list, the > least that he/she should do is subscribe. I delete systematically any > email with "please cc me as I'm not subscribed to the list". So you are saying that all the people that post to the mailing list are doing so to benefit themselves, and not to help the community? I also find those "please cc me as I'm not subscribed" annoying, that's why I don't add them, I just post. > Replying to the list: I want the lust to "mangle" the headers so that > I can hit "reply" and have the email go the list and not to the person > to whom I am replying. When you hit "reply to all" the mail will be sent to the mailing list, and the other person would receive the mail directly from you, and will know that the mail was directed to him (as a marker in Gmail, or mutt, etc.). Also it's nice to be able to search back mail: 'in:linux-kernel and to:felipe.contreras' and see actual results. Is it so much to ask for you to hit "reply to all" instead of "reply" (depending on the case), so that other people can have the benefits of non-munged headers? -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > I don't see any component in bugzilla for mailing lists, so I'm posting here. > > In order to do that I have to subscribe, which takes more than a few > bounces, and that's the problem. > > Public mailing lists should receive mail from *anybody*; if the poster > is not subscribed, then the message should go through moderation. This > is the truly open way. > > Orthogonal to this is that the mailing lists should not mingle with > "Reply-To"; they should leave the To and Cc fields intact, so that the > MUA can reply to the right addresses. See: > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > > This way when a non-subscriber posts something, he doesn't have to add > the "Please CC me as I'm not in the mailing list"; it will happen > automatically. I couldn't disagree more. Posting to the list: If someone wants to benefit from a list, the least that he/she should do is subscribe. I delete systematically any email with "please cc me as I'm not subscribed to the list". Replying to the list: I want the lust to "mangle" the headers so that I can hit "reply" and have the email go the list and not to the person to whom I am replying. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 07/05/2010 07:57 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> I took a considerable amount of time writing that email, it's not nice >> for non-subscriber mails to just be dropped like that. Please, make >> Fedora mailing list friendly to outsiders. > Check your sent folder. Your masterpiece should be there. You are ignoring the problem; I already lost time waiting, and I'm sure other people have in the past. > Then > subscribe and resend. That effort will always be much quicker than > waiting for an overworked moderator...or one who may be sleeping...to > approve you message. Quicker to get it done, but not quicker to do. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Tom Horsley wrote: > Actually there is at least one correctable valid point > floating around here: I just checked, and nowhere on > the web page for the list does it mention that you have > to be subscribed in order to send mail to the list: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Indeed. And there shouldn't be a "your post is waiting for moderator approval" automatic reply if there isn't any. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Greg Woods wrote: > Clearly, these are religious issues. Whether a list should set replies > to go to the list or to the original poster, whether postings from > non-members should be accepted, etc. are debated ad nauseum. You can't > come in here and state your opinions in these areas as though they were > facts; they are not. They are opinions in an ongoing religious war. Fact: the most difficult a process is to follow, the less people would follow it Fact: a community benefits from all kinds of contribution, even from one-post people Fact: the current system doesn't welcome one-time posts Fact: the current system doesn't allow cross-posting Fact: the current system doesn't specify when the reply was meant for the receiver Fact: the current system doesn't allow to properly Cc people (non-subscribers) to a thread I wan't aware there's a religious war about this, I just thought that whomever made the decision, didn't really had all the facts. > In the end, much time and effort on mailing lists is wasted arguing > these points instead of talking about the topic of the mailing list. And > those of us here on the list can do nothing about it anyway. Only the > list manager's opinion really counts, so if you want to make a serious > argument about it, that's where it should be directed. And who is that? Do I need to subscribe to yet another mailing list to contact him? -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Tim wrote: > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 14:57 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> In order to do that I have to subscribe, which takes more than a few >> bounces, and that's the problem. > > Something wrong with *your* mail, then, if there's any bouncing. If you > don't actually meaning mail bounces, then you're using the wrong > terminology. I mean that there are many steps involved, go to this page, fill this, wait for that, reply here, etc. Terminology is a field of study. Bounce is a word in the English language. I'm not a native English speaker, so I couldn't come up with a better word to describe the feeling of bumping from one task to the next. You cannot expect everyone to come up with the perfect words, and I thought that my sentence was understandable enough. If you have a better suggestion, I'm open for it. >> Public mailing lists should receive mail from *anybody*; if the poster >> is not subscribed, then the message should go through moderation. This >> is the truly open way. > > No thanks. If you want groups full of spam, there's usenet for that. There's filters for that. If your current filter doesn't work, switch. bogofilter maybe? > Subscriptions is a step in minimising crap being posted to the list > (whether that be spam, or simply tossers who'll post rubbish to lists, > just to spout crap from their fingers). Really? So I don't subscribe I'm a looser whose posts are not welcome? And if some random guy manages to subscribe (which according to a previous post it's easy), then it's post is worthwhile? I don't think so. Also, how do other big guy mailing lists manage without enforcing subscription? Looser posts are ignored... easy. > Though I notice that the > subscription process hasn't stopped a couple of spammers in the last few > days. Exactly. That's what spam filters are for. > If the list was moderated in the way you propose, moderators would spend > all their spare time checking new messages, and it'd be ages before your > post got through. No, it takes time, but eventually it gets posted. I do this on many lists. >> Orthogonal to this is that the mailing lists should not mingle with >> "Reply-To"; they should leave the To and Cc fields intact, so that the >> MUA can reply to the right addresses. See: >> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > > The list works fine. Messages go to the list, and the list's address is > in the "to" field, where it belongs. The initial mail might have the ml is "To", but might also be in "Cc". But the later posts wouldn't if the rules were right. I would be sending this mail to you, as you were the originator, and the mailing list would be kept in Cc. This has another advantage. Many clients, like Gmail, do smart thing where the user is in the To field (or Cc for that matter), but on Fedora lists, that information is lost thanks to the Reply-To munging. In my MUA, notmuch, for example, I have a rule; if the message was sent to the the certain mailing list, skip the inbox tag, unless it was sent to me. No way to do that here. > Because that's where the post was > sent to. Only because of Relpy-To munging; it's a vicious circle. > Lists that don't put themselves in the reply-to end up with very few > posts coming back to the list. You see a list full of the same > questions being asked over and over, because there's no replies being > made in public. You are speculating, and doing it wrong. Most of the mailing lists I'm subscribed to don't munge the Reply-To header, and all the threads are kept in the ml (in fact multiple mailing lists as cross-posting works). > You can still reply to the right address. A default reply will come > back to the list, where it's supposed to (for this list). You can opt > to reply to the person by replying to their *from* address, because the > poster's address is in the place that it ought to be, the "from" > address, because that's where the message came from. MUA's don't do that. Reply-To overrides everything. If Reply-To wasn't overridden, there would be the option to reply to the person, or reply to everyone (including the ml). > I can't recall whether it changes the CCs, and I half agree with keeping > them. Unfortunately some troublemakers abuse that, by replying to some > post, and adding inappropriate addresses to a CC field. Reply-To overrides the Cc too. However, that's only the *default*, what you call "troublemakers" can send a mail to whomever they want, and Cc whomever they want. So that's not an argument in favor of Reply-To munging. >> This way when a non-subscriber posts something, he doesn't have to add >> the "Please CC me as I'm not in the mailing list"; it will happen >> automatically. > > A non-subscriber can't participate, nor should they be able to do. If > they do subscribe, then things just work. So if somebody doesn't want to subscribe, you are not interested in what they have to say? Well, I'm not interesting in prejudices, I
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On 05/07/10 17:29, Tom Horsley wrote: > Actually there is at least one correctable valid point > floating around here: I just checked, and nowhere on > the web page for the list does it mention that you have > to be subscribed in order to send mail to the list: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users But that is preceded by: "there are many thousands of subscribers" and not "there are many thousands of users\posters" -- Regards, Frank Murphy UTF_8 Encoded Friend of Fedora -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 12:29 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote: > Actually there is at least one correctable valid point > floating around here: I just checked, and nowhere on > the web page for the list does it mention that you have > to be subscribed in order to send mail to the list: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users It's actually quite similar to the boilerplate for most Mailman lists, which often don't mention this even as they explain how to subscribe. I guess it could be clearer though. poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
