From: Jay West
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 1:31 PM
> We've been in the process of moving our datacenter. As a result, changing
> headers on this list has been the last thing on my mind priority-wise.
> Add to that, we still have a few machines to move that will require
> hand-reimplementation
gt; To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> >
> > Subject: Re: I hate the new mail system
> >
> > On 17 March 2017 at 14:43, Philipp Hachtmann via cctalk
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 03/16/2017 10:07 PM, Mike Stein via c
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Tor
> Arntsen via cctalk
> Sent: 17 March 2017 15:38
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>
> Subject: Re: I hate the new mail system
>
> On 17 March 2017
On 17 March 2017 at 14:43, Philipp Hachtmann via cctalk
wrote:
>
>
> On 03/16/2017 10:07 PM, Mike Stein via cctalk wrote:
>>
>> I'm pretty confident that every member of the list appreciates the
>> time, effort and whatever else you and certain others have
>> contributed to keep this list humming
On 03/16/2017 10:07 PM, Mike Stein via cctalk wrote:
I'm pretty confident that every member of the list appreciates the
time, effort and whatever else you and certain others have
contributed to keep this list humming as well as it almost always
does;
Full ack, of course!
But the new addressin
ed to keep this list
humming as well as it almost always does; I certainly do.
Thank you!
m
- Original Message -
From: "Jay West via cctalk"
To: "'Philipp Hachtmann'" ; "'General Discussion: On-Topic
and Off-Topic Posts'"
Sent: Thurs
It was written
==
This header change thing is A BIG MESS! Make it like before, PLEASE!
It's just annoying, unusable (On my iOS devices, I can't find the original
sender at all!) and completely unneeded.
I'm losing fun using the list.
--
We've been in the pr
On 03/07/2017 10:57 AM, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote:
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017, Mouse wrote:
[...]
And BTW, what you are doing is not clever at all:
mo...@rodents-montreal.org
SMTP error from remote mail server after initial connection:
host MX-4.rodents-montreal.org [98.124.61.89]:
This header change thing is A BIG MESS! Make it like before, PLEASE!
It's just annoying, unusable (On my iOS devices, I can't find the
original sender at all!) and completely unneeded.
I'm losing fun using the list.
On 03/04/2017 08:38 AM, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote:
For now I have
I don't hate it, but it sure is inconvenient:
Looks like I get messages with three different "TO" addresses:
cctalk@classiccmp.org
and
General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts;
No problem with those two; easy to pick out cctalk messages.
But
;General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-T
I didn't make any intentional changes to my filters (do I even have any?)
so I can't say that's the cause. But about 75% of my cctalk mails now show
up as "read".. and it's super-annoying. Anyone know how to correct it?
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Eric Christopherson via cctalk <
cctalk@clas
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:44 AM, drlegendre . via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> I was wondering why 99% of my cctalk shows up as "read mail".. =/
>
> What a PITA, I can't tell what I have read from what I have not read - is
> this part of the 'new' system?
>
You mean in Gmail? I don't
I was wondering why 99% of my cctalk shows up as "read mail".. =/
What a PITA, I can't tell what I have read from what I have not read - is
this part of the 'new' system?
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:46 PM, ben via cctalk
wrote:
> What did you do? 99% of all my cctalk is now in my spam filter.
>
>
What did you do? 99% of all my cctalk is now in my spam filter.
On 9 March 2017 at 10:50, Christian Corti via cctalk
wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2017, Tor Arntsen wrote:
>>
>> I did an strace and I can confirm that the Linux 'whois' client that I
>> used from those various sites sends '-T dn' (or actually -T dn,ace)
>>
>> write(3, "-T dn,ace uni-stuttgart.de\r\n"
Mouse via cctalk wrote:
[..]
> law). I simply consider it antisocial and uncivilized, and am not
> interested in accepting mail from any domain within its bailiwick.
...what you call social and civilized it seems...
Regards,
Holm
--
Technik Service u. Handel Tiffe, www.tsht.de, Holm Tif
>> RFC 3912 doesn't specify what output the whois server is supposed to
>> send. Everybody "assumes" that it should be the complete domain
>> information, but that's simply not the case.
>> Imposing this assumption is what Mouse does, and that is wrong.
No, that is not what I'm doing, though I c
On 09/03/2017 09:50, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017, Tor Arntsen wrote:
I did an strace and I can confirm that the Linux 'whois' client that I
used from those various sites sends '-T dn' (or actually -T dn,ace)
I did a little research on that:
The '-T' option is passed t
On 09/03/2017 07:25, Tor Arntsen wrote:
I did an strace and I can confirm that the Linux 'whois' client that I
used from those various sites sends '-T dn' (or actually -T dn,ace)
write(3, "-T dn,ace uni-stuttgart.de\r\n", 28) = 28
I can't see where this whois originates from, it has version
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017, Tor Arntsen wrote:
I did an strace and I can confirm that the Linux 'whois' client that I
used from those various sites sends '-T dn' (or actually -T dn,ace)
write(3, "-T dn,ace uni-stuttgart.de\r\n", 28) = 28
I can't see where this whois originates from, it has version nu
On 8 March 2017 at 19:46, Pete Turnbull wrote:
> Notice that - unlike normal whois servers - this one apparently requires
> some other stuff, possibly including the text "whois", as part of the query.
> That may explain why a normal whois client gets an error, because the
> standard way to make a
On 08/03/2017 07:11, Tor Arntsen via cctalk wrote:
I tested 'whois -h whois.denic.de uni-stuttgart.de'
from Oslo, London, Tokyo, and it seems to work fine - I got all
expected whois output. Tested yesterday too.
Sounds like it may be the whois client instead - what OS are you guys
using, and whi
On 7 March 2017 at 15:57, Pete Turnbull via cctalk
wrote:
> On 07/03/2017 13:47, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Pete Turnbull wrote:
>>>
>>> No, Mouse is right, it's broken:
>>
>>
>> Works for me (also from different networks outside the university
>> network):
>
>
> I
;):
> Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 20:23:42 -0600
> From: Eric Christopherson via cctalk
> Reply-To: Eric Christopherson ,
> "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
>
> Subject: Re: I
rs"):
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 20:23:42 -0600
From: Eric Christopherson via cctalk
Reply-To: Eric Christopherson ,
"General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
Subject: Re: I hate the new mail system
Some
Christopherson ,
"General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
Subject: Re: I hate the new mail system
Some yahoos would do it as:
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 20:23:42 -0600
From: "Eric Christopherson echris
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Christian Corti via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> > And cctalk@... is neither responsible for the writing of the message nor
> > does it belong to the author of the message. But replies should be di
Mouse via cctalk wrote:
> >> And BTW, what you are doing is not clever at all:
> >> mo...@rodents-montreal.org
> >> SMTP error from remote mail server after initial connection:
> >> host MX-4.rodents-montreal.org [98.124.61.89]:
> >> 550-.de's whois server, whois.denic.de, is complet
On 07/03/2017 15:07, Mouse via cctalk wrote:
$ telnet whois.denic.de 43
Trying 81.91.170.6...
Connected to whois.denic.de.
Escape character is '^]'.
whois -r uni-stuttgart.de
% Error: 557 Request not clearly specified
Connection closed by foreign host.
$
That's broken.
In that case,
>> No, Mouse is right, it's broken:
>
> Works for me (also from different networks outside the university network):
Interesting... I still get the same errors. Could it be
location-dependant in some way?
Tried from Boston, and Stockholm, so I don't think so.
Are you using the
>> And BTW, what you are doing is not clever at all:
>> mo...@rodents-montreal.org
>> SMTP error from remote mail server after initial connection:
>> host MX-4.rodents-montreal.org [98.124.61.89]:
>> 550-.de's whois server, whois.denic.de, is completely broken, handing
>> 550-out
On 07/03/2017 13:47, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Pete Turnbull wrote:
No, Mouse is right, it's broken:
Works for me (also from different networks outside the university network):
Interesting... I still get the same errors. Could it be
location-dependant in some wa
> No, Mouse is right, it's broken:
Works for me
Ditto FWIW.
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Pete Turnbull wrote:
No, Mouse is right, it's broken:
Works for me (also from different networks outside the university
network):
# whois uni-stuttgart.de
% Copyright (c) 2010 by DENIC
% Version: 2.0
%
% Restricted rights.
%
% Terms and Conditions of Use
%
% The data in t
On 07/03/2017 09:57, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote:
And BTW, what you are doing is not clever at all:
mo...@rodents-montreal.org
SMTP error from remote mail server after initial connection:
host MX-4.rodents-montreal.org [98.124.61.89]:
550-.de's whois server, whois.denic.de, is
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Christian Corti via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> And cctalk@... is neither responsible for the writing of the message nor
> does it belong to the author of the message. But replies should be directed
> there, so there should be a Reply-To: field containi
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017, Mouse wrote:
[...]
And BTW, what you are doing is not clever at all:
mo...@rodents-montreal.org
SMTP error from remote mail server after initial connection:
host MX-4.rodents-montreal.org [98.124.61.89]:
550-.de's whois server, whois.denic.de, is completely broke
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017, Mouse wrote:
Yes, and it must not be in the Reply-To: field because in normal
cases, this field is the one used for replying, and I want to reply
to the list, and only to the list.
...that's sure what this sounds like. If so, I have little sympathy
for your position.
So y
> You know how to see what user agent I use (hint: alpine). And it is
> fully capable of editing or changing anything I want.
Good. Then what's the problem?
Do you just want the list to be tuned so that you won't have to take a
few seconds to edit out any addresses you don't want to send to?
Ba
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017, Mouse wrote:
Only if you don't bother editing it down to whichever address you want
to reply to (as I did for this message). If your user agent doesn't
let you do that, well, your choice of a crippled user agent (and an
inability to edit the list of recipients is a pretty ser
> My complaint (and I guess many more from other users will follow) is,
> that if you reply to a message on the list, the author of that
> message gets a private mail, too, as he is listed in the
> Reply-To:-field.
Only if you don't bother editing it down to whichever address you want
to reply to
> From: Christian Corti
> My complaint ... is, that if you reply to a message on the list, the
> author of that message gets a private mail, too, as he is listed in the
> Reply-To:-field. This is *wrong* and must be corrected (i.e. removed)!
Good grief. Just about every email from
That seems to be peculiar to GNU. I haven't had any on GMAIL
Read the archive, it isn't peculiar to the gnu.org.
Two of the four ipv4 nameservers for gnu.org are broken. By those
odds, I would expect anything up to 50% of any mail you receive via
ipv4 to bounce.
Which has nothing to do with anything.
I gave you some hints in this direction the last time you mentioned you
were getting bounces
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
> And for what it is worth, continued bounces.
>
Alfred,
Two of the four ipv4 nameservers for gnu.org are broken. By those
odds, I would expect anything up to 50% of any mail you receive via ipv4
to bounce.
I gave you some hints in this direction the last time you m
osts
>
> Cc: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: I hate the new mail system
>
> And for what it is worth, continued bounces.
>
> From: cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org
> To: a...@gnu.org
> Subject: confirm
> Dat
> The whole "foo via cctalk" is *really* annoying... What is wrong with
> a half default mailman setup? There is no Reply-To header there, From
> is set to the person actually sending the message (as it should be).
Yes, that is most annoying. My complaint (and I guess many more
fr
On Sat, 4 Mar 2017, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
The whole "foo via cctalk" is *really* annoying... What is wrong with
a half default mailman setup? There is no Reply-To header there, From
is set to the person actually sending the message (as it should be).
Yes, that is most annoying. My complaint
And for what it is worth, continued bounces.
From: cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org
To: a...@gnu.org
Subject: confirm
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2017 14:28:13 -0600
Your membership in the mailing list cctalk has been disabled du
The whole "foo via cctalk" is *really* annoying... What is wrong with
a half default mailman setup? There is no Reply-To header there, From
is set to the person actually sending the message (as it should be).
And all the bounce addresses are set to
cctalk-bounces+foo=b...@classiccmp.org where foo
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Jules Richardson wrote:
Thanks to both of you. I came back to cctalk after not checking it for a few
days, and wondered what the %$#^ was going on, with every message showing
with cctalk as the "from" field.
I'm another one who dislikes the new system. It would be much bett
On 02/28/2017 07:43 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 02/28/2017 05:21 PM, Jon Auringer wrote:
Chuck,
I had the same display issue. Uncheck "Show only display name for
people in my address book" under Tools-Options-Display-Advanced.
Jon,
Thanks for the hint! I'm using the Linux version
actually when it all shows up as cc talk as the sender it is of value
as we can clear the group of mail faster after I have picked out the
topics relative to what we are working on.
Ed#
In a message dated 3/1/2017 2:47:11 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
cctalk@classiccmp.o
On 28 February 2017 at 21:23, Rich Alderson via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> OK, it's official. I rarely criticize mail interfaces, because they're
> usually
> mostly innocuous. However, today's change makes life a lot more difficult.
>
> In the past, it was simple to direct a reply
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Dave Wade
G4UGM via cctalk
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:52 PM
> "reply all" seems to put the original sender and the list in the "to:"
> field..
Thanks, Dave, Dennis, and js.
I had no reason to reply (all) to any of these me
On 02/28/2017 03:23 PM, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
OK, it's official. I rarely criticize mail interfaces, because they're usually
mostly innocuous. However, today's change makes life a lot more difficult.
In the past, it was simple to direct a reply to an individual instead of to the
list
On 02/28/2017 05:21 PM, Jon Auringer wrote:
>
> Chuck,
>
> I had the same display issue. Uncheck "Show only display name for
> people in my address book" under Tools-Options-Display-Advanced.
Jon,
Thanks for the hint! I'm using the Linux version of Thunderbird, so the
setting isn't under "Tool
It was thus said that the Great Chuck Guzis via cctalk once stated:
> On 02/28/2017 03:40 PM, Paul Berger wrote:
> > Well I am using Thunderbird 45.7.1 and I see this "Chuck Guzis via
> > cctalk " as "From" in your message.
> >
>
> Hmmm, this is very puzzling. Your message does indeed show up a
On 02/28/2017 03:40 PM, Paul Berger wrote:
> Well I am using Thunderbird 45.7.1 and I see this "Chuck Guzis via
> cctalk " as "From" in your message.
>
Hmmm, this is very puzzling. Your message does indeed show up as being
from "Paul Berger", by the message you replied to shows up as being from
Well I am using Thunderbird 45.7.1 and I see this "Chuck Guzis via
cctalk " as "From" in your message.
Paul.
On 2017-02-28 7:32 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 02/28/2017 03:18 PM, Torfinn Ingolfsen via cctalk wrote:
FWIW, reply and reply all in Gmail web interface now lists both
addres
On 02/28/2017 03:18 PM, Torfinn Ingolfsen via cctalk wrote:
> FWIW, reply and reply all in Gmail web interface now lists both
> addresses (originator and mailing list). I don't know if this is a
> change again.
>
> Also, I find it somewhat funny in a bizarre way that people on this
> list who h
FWIW, reply and reply all in Gmail web interface now lists both
addresses (originator and mailing list). I don't know if this is a
change again.
Also, I find it somewhat funny in a bizarre way that people on this
list who have experience with all kinds of systems, all kinds of user
interfaces and
>> [From: changing]
> You can blame me for the change to the way the From: header is
> handled. The purpose of this change is to try to solve the mass
> bounce problem.
Sounds as though this may be a cure worse than the disease, though.
> Actually, you should really blame the folks responsible
Simple question of policy (what do we WANT, not "what is the only sensible
right way"):
Do we want the DEFAULT to be replying to author, or replying to list?
Current configuration has REPLY-TO being same as REPLY-ALL,
and has REPLY being a reply to list, with the TO: line having the
inconsisten
On 28/02/2017 21:23, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
OK, it's official. I rarely criticize mail interfaces, because
they're usually mostly innocuous. However, today's change makes life
a lot more difficult.
Actually, I rather like it, because in my mail client (Thunderbird) it
shows as "From:
On 28/02/2017 22:06, Eric Christopherson via cctalk wrote:
At least in Gmail's web interface, I don't see reply and reply all having
any difference here; they both put both addresses in the To:. I'll have to
check how this works in an IMAP client later.
It may vary in different clients, but in
> From: Rich Alderson
> it is impossible to respond privately unless you happen to have a bunch
> of old messages archived and the person to whom you want to respond is
> someone who has written previously.
If you go into the list archive:
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cc
o: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
> >
> > Subject: I hate the new mail system
> >
> > OK, it's official. I rarely criticize mail interfaces, because they're
> usually
> > mostly innocuous. However, today's change
via cctalk
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 4:50 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: I hate the new mail system
> Is this a conscious choice, or a configurable with a different > default
> setting in a new mail system than was previously in place?
&
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Rich
> Alderson via cctalk
> Sent: 28 February 2017 21:23
> To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
>
> Subject: I hate the new mail system
>
> O
> Is this a conscious choice, or a configurable with a different
> default setting in a new mail system than was previously in place?
> However it came to be, it greatly diminishes communications quality
> (IMAO).
You can blame me for the change to the way the From: header is handled.
The purp
OK, it's official. I rarely criticize mail interfaces, because they're usually
mostly innocuous. However, today's change makes life a lot more difficult.
In the past, it was simple to direct a reply to an individual instead of to the
list because the originator's address was right there in the F
72 matches
Mail list logo
