On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:37:53 -0500
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Must be a bug. In Sylpheed 2.0.1-1 (GTK+ version 2.6.10),
Message-Reply to-Mailing list does what it's supposed
to do: put only debian-user@lists.debian.org in To:, and
nothing in Cc:.
I figured as much, I guess it's
Seth Goodman wrote:
Referencing 822 for much of anything these days is not very useful, unless
if you're interested in email history.
Which is something you need to know when blatently getting 822 and 2822
backwards when it comes to reply-to.
As I pointed out in a previous post,
From: Steve Lamb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 2:50 AM
Seth Goodman wrote:
Referencing 822 for much of anything these days is not very
useful, unless
if you're interested in email history.
Which is something you need to know when blatently getting
822
Seth Goodman wrote:
I am well aware of the differences between the two standards. You would do
well to read them both carefully as well as RFC1123.
Apparently not since you got them backwards and couldn't even see the
problems in your own argument.
In the redistribution case, the only
Albert wrote:
Yes, you are right. Debian does this different than the rest of the world.
That's because we do it the right way. As of RFC2822 reply-to munging is
clearly wrong while in 822 there was a clear indication it was allowed.
Furthermore several other list headers are included for
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 14:20 -0400, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
This is fine. Notice how reply to the list, but don't CC me isn't
part of what reasonable mailers are expected to do:
Reply-To munging does not
Angelo Bertolli wrote:
2) Respond to the list and don't CC me
So in this case, do we hit reply-all, and cut and paste the list email
as the To: line, removing all others, etc?
Yes. This is a problem with Thunderbird as there is no list reply. One
of the few problems with an otherwise
Mike McCarty wrote:
Threading is based on message IDs. The mailer threads properly.
Threading is based on the References header which is a News header.
In-reply-to is insufficient for complete threading when one hop is missing. :P
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm
Seth Goodman wrote:
Getting back to the reply function, the standards are silent as to how to
treat Reply-To: for a redistributed message and the field is optional to
start with. The preferred reply action for a mailing list message is to
reply to the list (the actual sender of the message
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:40:50 -0700
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. How you can cite 2822 as a reference for reply-to
munging while denouncing 822 is beyond me. It was 822 that had an explicit
reference to mailing lists as an acceptable use of 822. 2822 *removed*
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 17:39:40 -0700
Seeker5528 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:40:50 -0700
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
To add to the insanity (at least with sylpheed-claws-gtk2)
it seems if the Reply To: field contains the posters email
address then no
From: Steve Lamb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 2:41 PM
Seth Goodman wrote:
Getting back to the reply function, the standards are silent as
to how to
treat Reply-To: for a redistributed message and the field is optional to
start with. The preferred reply
Angelo Bertolli wrote:
[Sorry for replying in that other thread, here is a new one:]
Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much respond this way on the list
lately. I'm using Tbird, and when I hit reply it replies to the
poster only. When I hit reply-all it goes to the poster, the list,
and
to know if the
issue is different than I percieve. (And, I will want to run Thunderbird on
the laptop when I get it finished, and need to know any quirks)
Fritz
- Original Message -
From: Antony Gelberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Responses
Angelo Bertolli wrote:
[Sorry for replying in that other thread, here is a new one:]
Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much respond this way on the list
lately. I'm using Tbird, and when I hit reply it replies to the
poster only. When I hit reply-all it goes to the poster, the list,
and
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 12:39 -0500, Albert wrote:
Angelo Bertolli wrote:
[Sorry for replying in that other thread, here is a new one:]
Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much respond this way on the list
lately. I'm using Tbird, and when I hit reply it replies to the
poster only.
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 12:39 -0500, Albert wrote:
snip
Yes, you are right. Debian does this different than the rest of
the world.
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Yes, this ancient piece of Holy Writ was quoted to me years ago.
Still, Debian does this
Ron Johnson wrote:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
This is fine. Notice how reply to the list, but don't CC me isn't
part of what reasonable mailers are expected to do:
Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer.
People want to munge Reply-To
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 14:20 -0400, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
This is fine. Notice how reply to the list, but don't CC me isn't
part of what reasonable mailers are expected to do:
Reply-To munging does not benefit the user
Ron Johnson wrote:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Using what he recommends ruins threaded reading, because
the reply goes to the originator of the message, and the
list gets CCd.
Mike
--
p=p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);};main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from
Good afternoon!
So in this case, do we hit reply-all, and cut and paste the list email as
the To: line, removing all others, etc?
I use reply all and then cut out everyone's name leaving only the list
address.
So far, I haven't annoyed anyone.
Rob
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
From: Ron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 12:50 PM
...
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
This is written from the perspective of Elm being the reference for all
MUA's. Though I used Elm twenty years ago as my primary MUA, the MUA's in
widest
Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ron Johnson wrote:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Using what he recommends ruins threaded reading, because
the reply goes to the originator of the message, and the
list gets CCd.
That sounds like a
Joe Smith wrote:
Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ron Johnson wrote:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Using what he recommends ruins threaded reading, because
the reply goes to the originator of the message, and the
list gets CCd.
Joe Smith writes:
Rember that email was not designed for threading. Threading was what
newsgroups were invented for.
No. News was invented to reduce traffic. There used to be a rule of thumb
on how large a mailing-list should get before it was replaced by a
newsgroup.
This is supposed to be
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joe Smith writes:
Rember that email was not designed for threading. Threading was what
newsgroups were invented for.
No. News was invented to reduce traffic. There used to be a rule of
thumb
on how large a
Mike said:
Threading is based on message IDs. The mailer threads properly.
The message ID should not change based on whom the message is sent AFAICT,
so who is in the reply feild does not really matter.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
27 matches
Mail list logo
