Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?

2018-05-30 Thread Milan Crha
On Wed, 2018-05-30 at 12:04 +0200, Garreau, Alexandre wrote: > > Right, it's part of the development version. To be released in > > 3.30.0+. > > Oh ok, I’m still under Debian stable so I probably don’t have access > to it… Hi, the 3.30.0 stable version of evolution is to-be-released

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?

2018-05-30 Thread Garreau, Alexandre
On 2018-05-30 at 08:47, Milan Crha wrote: > On Wed, 2018-05-30 at 03:04 +0200, Garreau, Alexandre wrote: >> I didn’t understand… you receive the message then, right? > > Yes, but not from the list. Hmm… that’s why I don’t like a such configuration, a such proper handling would require to store

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?

2018-05-30 Thread Milan Crha
Hi, On Wed, 2018-05-30 at 03:04 +0200, Garreau, Alexandre wrote: > Should we cross-post to evolution-list Cross-posting is considered bad too. You can just start new conversation there. > ...to that private mailing list from the outside, ... Right, private and public mailing lists can

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?

2018-05-29 Thread Garreau, Alexandre
On 2018-05-29 at 10:06, Milan Crha wrote: > By the way, this particular question belongs to evolution-list, rather > than to evolution-hackers. The later is for coders, while you are > discussing user functions. Not a big deal, just saying. Should we cross-post to evolution-list, then stop

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?

2018-05-29 Thread Milan Crha
On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 02:48 +0200, Garreau, Alexandre wrote: > (not the same thing as a thread may change > topic by having one of its participant changing its subject line) Hi off topic: a) I'm replying intentionally to the list b) I'm talking to you, the person written at the very first

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?

2018-05-28 Thread Garreau, Alexandre
Le 29/05/2018 à 01h35, Ángel a écrit : > On 2018-05-28 at 23:21 +0200, Garreau, Alexandre wrote: >> On 2018-05-28 at 15:40, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: >> > Reply-To-List is the only option anyone should ever use, IMNSHO. Doing >> > anything else is bad netiquette. >> >> Really? When beginning

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?

2018-05-28 Thread Ángel
On 2018-05-28 at 23:21 +0200, Garreau, Alexandre wrote: > On 2018-05-28 at 15:40, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > > Reply-To-List is the only option anyone should ever use, IMNSHO. Doing > > anything else is bad netiquette. > > Really? When beginning first to use mailing lists I was curious about >

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?

2018-05-28 Thread Garreau, Alexandre
On 2018-05-28 at 15:40, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: >> “reply in private to the list, outside of the knowledge of eventual >> participants). The problem here is “reply to the list” is not the >> canonical standard thing most people will want to do, it is just the >> complementary opposite of “reply

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?

2018-05-28 Thread Adam Tauno Williams
> “reply in private to the list, outside of the knowledge of eventual > participants). The problem here is “reply to the list” is not the > canonical standard thing most people will want to do, it is just the > complementary opposite of “reply privately to the sender”: “reply > privately to the

[Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?

2018-05-28 Thread Garreau, Alexandre
Hi, Recently I missed a mail, for only some days fortunately, but knowing myself I might have missed a lot more this way: this mail was an answer on a mailing list, to a mail I sent there, and it didn’t include me in either the “To:” nor the “Cc:” header, thought the user (whose