Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?
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 later this year. > What does it do? It lets you reply with a different style than you use otherwise, aka you can override global/account settings for reply function with it. https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=602612 Bye, Milan ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?
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 somewhere the address of subscribed mailing-lists and try to recognize one of these in the recipients headers of each mail received. >> Though contrarily to Evolution, the later >> differentiate between “To:” and “Cc:” header (Evolution puts >> everything in “To:” > > Hmm, as far as I can tell, Evolution preserves the CC header content. I tried again: indeed, the behavior is different but it let people previously in CC in CC. However people that were in the “To” go in the “To” instead of “Cc”, contrarily to “Wide reply”… given my understanding of “Cc” (people you want to show the mail to, without addressing to them) that seems maybe better… but I’m not sure yet. >> and all the rest (that were in the “To:”, “Cc:” and “Bcc:”) in the >> “Cc:”. > > I do not agree, there is a reason why there are people in Bcc. They > should not be exposed in To or CC. Oh sorry, indeed! Bcc stay in Bcc sorry in fact. >> What’s the difference between Group Reply, Reply to all and Reply to >> list then? > > You can configure what Group Reply does, according to your > preferences/habits. That seems a bit anti-ergonomic :/ it would be better to have unambiguously named command and their UI interface well placed, possibly with their position exchanged according to your preferences/habits. >> Alternative Reply? > > 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… What does it do? >> “Complicated” doesn’t mean complete, complex or big, and “Evolution” >> may metonymically refers to its UI as well. > > There had been a criticism that the menus are too long already. I refer > just to that. Yes indeed. ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?
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 have different rules. > I didn’t understand… you receive the message then, right? Yes, but not from the list. > Though contrarily to Evolution, the later > differentiate between “To:” and “Cc:” header (Evolution puts > everything in “To:” Hmm, as far as I can tell, Evolution preserves the CC header content. > and all the rest (that were in the “To:”, “Cc:” and “Bcc:”) in the > “Cc:”. I do not agree, there is a reason why there are people in Bcc. They should not be exposed in To or CC. > What’s the difference between Group Reply, Reply to all and Reply to > list then? You can configure what Group Reply does, according to your preferences/habits. > Alternative Reply? Right, it's part of the development version. To be released in 3.30.0+. > “Complicated” doesn’t mean complete, complex or big, and “Evolution” > may metonymically refers to its UI as well. There had been a criticism that the menus are too long already. I refer just to that. Bye, Milan ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?
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 posting here, so that to move to a more appropriated place the current discussion, if it sounds more constructive to you than it may bother you? > is a nonsense (I'm sorry, I'd use a softer term if I knew such) Maybe it’s because I’m not fluent, used or familiar enough with english, but that term doesn’t sound “hard” or harsh in any way to me, it’s just descriptive, though quite general (or unclear). > Yours "writing privately to the list" is a nonsense […], the mailing > list is a public place, not private. I knew many private mailing lists, where you had to ask to their owners to be added (this was particularely true for companies, political parties, etc.), and sometimes a collaborator where suggested to send a proposition to that private mailing list from the outside, and then the more active people on the mailing list would reply, and cc the mailing list so less active people could see the discussion, and eventually try to participate later, while the outsiders would receive all the mail directed to them, and eventually see exchanges between several subscribed parties who found appropriated to cc them in their subsequent interpersonal exchanges. The same way, as public archives may not always be accessible or easy to find, link, use or read, and as not subscribed people may participate, it may make sense (or at least be possible) to take parts of the conversation only between lists subscribers, without involving not subscribed people. For instance let’s say some newbie, let’s say an easily worriable one or a really busy employee, that one may want not to bother with highly technical or stressfull discussion, asks some high-level question that has deep non-technical implications to a technical mailing list with a lot hackers and such, some of them may want talk about some stuff without having to explain them, without to bother the newbie, and while still allowing subscribers interested in learning to read, then first not adding the aforementioned newbie to the recipients headers, discuss, and then the idea has been deemed valuable to report to the former questioner, answer them what has been discussed while explaining not more than what has been deemed necessary to use for their problem. This is a bit complex case and may not happen that often, although I may guess it may happen with people with complex enough usage of mails or inside political parties. > I do not know what your use case or work flow is that you > notice messages where you are in To/Cc better than messages directed > only to the list where you are subscribed (I'd guess as long as they > are directed to the list too they end at the same folder), but okay. I split and sort my mail according the List-Id header. When a mail comes from a mailing list, I have a lisp function that reverse, cut (the tld), simplify (remove really redundant qualifiers such as “discuss”, “readers”, “users”, “infos”, “news” and “list”), deduplicate (uniq), add “lists”, and join with “.” so that that for instance your answer will arrive in the “lists.gnome.evolution.hacker” group and one from evolution-list will arrive in the “lists.gnome.evolution” group (that means the directory “~/mail/lists/gnome/evolution” in nnml format, also works with nnmh “MH” and nnspool ones, as aforementioned [1]). > That only proves that different people have different habits and use > cases. To be honest, I hate when people reply to all in the lists. It > breaks reply to the list, because I receive messages directed only to > the list (when I'm not in To/CC, there's a setting in mailman for it, > which avoids duplicate mails), that means that reply to all makes > things worse for someone. I didn’t understand… you receive the message then, right? and even only once (this is interesting as yesterday I did ask to mailman hackers about an optional (configurable at subscription) functionality)? > It makes sense to reply to the list, it's the place where the thread > begun, thus it should stay there, in the public. Sometimes it makes sense answering in private not to bother the list with little personnal off-topic. > As Ángel said, if you are not subscribed, then you can say so and > people will keep you in the loop. Doing it "only because you can" (like > by adding such notice into your signature regardless of actual state) > might not be ideal. Again, different people, different habits, > different preferences. Sad these are non-standard, nor have we standards to differentiate and equally adapt to and treat them :/ > People using reply-to-all, because either they > do not know reply-to-list or their mail client doesn't offer it to them > is no argument to keep using reply-to-all, just
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?
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 line of this mail, because "Garreau, Alexandre wrote:" c) I do not know how much intentionally you did it, but you wrote three different topics here, in a way that there is one thread which covers all three topics in a very sad way. They use to call it "thread stealing". Yours "writing privately to the list" is a nonsense (I'm sorry, I'd use a softer term if I knew such), the mailing list is a public place, not private. I do not know what your use case or work flow is that you notice messages where you are in To/Cc better than messages directed only to the list where you are subscribed (I'd guess as long as they are directed to the list too they end at the same folder), but okay. That only proves that different people have different habits and use cases. To be honest, I hate when people reply to all in the lists. It breaks reply to the list, because I receive messages directed only to the list (when I'm not in To/CC, there's a setting in mailman for it, which avoids duplicate mails), that means that reply to all makes things worse for someone. It makes sense to reply to the list, it's the place where the thread begun, thus it should stay there, in the public. As Ángel said, if you are not subscribed, then you can say so and people will keep you in the loop. Doing it "only because you can" (like by adding such notice into your signature regardless of actual state) might not be ideal. Again, different people, different habits, different preferences. People using reply-to-all, because either they do not know reply-to-list or their mail client doesn't offer it to them is no argument to keep using reply-to-all, just the opposite. Back to the matter, Edit->Preferences->Composer Preferences->General tab->[x] Group Reply goes only to mailing list, if possible. That's probably the option you are looking for. With that off the Ctrl+L still goes to the list only, but the Group Reply goes to all. For me, there's Reply to Sender, Reply to All, Reply to List, Group Reply and now also Alternative Reply. Adding another reply kind, maybe with a short cut, especially in a world where there's a tendency to make things simpler, rather than more complicated (there are complaints that Evolution it already too complicated, you repeated that several times too), could not add to the thing. I also do not understand how you'd recognize when to use reply-to-all instead of reply-to-list-and- From. There can be people in the To/CC whom are not subscribed to the list, thus you'd just remove them from the loop, which is wrong (I know, you wanted to reply to the list and the To addresses, but that's not correct, because the To can be the mailing list and all the other people in the loop could be in CC, while you are replying to the person in the From header). 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. Bye, Milan ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?
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 first to use mailing lists I was curious about >> such a practice, but I tried to read again Netiquitte and didn’t found >> anything related [1]. > > People have different views on this. Until then I keep being put “To” of mails coming from GNU mailing lists, and am happy with this due to the semantical meaning of “To” I constructed in my mind. But how of other views? how widespread is each one? why? >> Also that means if I didn’t subscribed to this >> list (I almost didn’t, then did, since Evolution was my first mail >> user-agent, a major one, and I might be interested in its, heh, >> evolution) I would never have received an answer, > > Generally, if you write to a mailing list, you are expected to either be > subscribed (in fact, you often can't send there without subscribing > first), or politely request to be CCed in your email. Oh, what a good idea! I might even add this in a signature (then why not to be put in the To when appropriate?)? Or what about a special header to convey a such meaning so that to disambiguate the meaning of To and Cc headers? > Also, maybe you are not interested in receiving everything, but failing > everything else you should at least check the archives for replies. > > (there are also other use cases, like people reading the mailing list > through a mail2news gateway) I dislike web (archives) :/ still nntp would be a clean option. > Some mailing lists function differently, however, such as those support > emails which are actually backed by a mailing list, in which the > customer is not (and can not be) a subscriber. Thus, there it is known > that the customer only receives emails explicitly directed to him, and > Reply to all must be used. Oh, I recall sometimes having mail returned because of a such mailing list policy! Maybe then an unambiguous and formal usage may be not to add To/Cc on mailing-lists disallowing unsubscribed mail address to send mail through them? Then maybe special mailing-list headers on mail could also convey a such meaning to be more widely known by user-agents… But isn’t it complicated to keep a that complicated behavior, with headers semantics depending of context, mailing-list, people, etc. and obligating people to have more complex mail formats, understanding, usage and maybe messaging systems (mailing lists, newsgroups, etc.) rather than slightly more complicated user-agents, with a lot more simpler semantics? >> as I believe neither mailman nor sympa do have the (complicated) >> feature of keeping track of subjects, references and reply-to headers >> so that to send to unsubscribed senders to the mailing-list messages >> [which] answer or references what they sent. Especially that would >> impedes the ability to privately react and discuss about the sent may >> privately before to maybe answer back a maybe more reflected and >> collective answer. Yet I guess that too might be considered bad >> netiquette, as until then I only twice were answered on a mailing >> list without having been directly mailed: once before my mail, and >> once with this one. > > That would be a bad idea for a mailing list to do automatically. > It should actually be a user subscription option. In addition to receive > emails / don't receive / receive as a digest, you would have a "receive > only mails from threads where I have participated" option. > And yes, that would be a complicated feature to implement. I thought to such checkboxes/options, such as, for instance “mail me too altogether as other mailing-list members” or “mail me a remainder” or “don’t mail me messages with such and such topics / subjects / tags / headers / content-warning” or here, either “don’t mail me again mails that are already also addressed to me through To, Cc or Bcc” or, possibly, but a bit more complicated, “don’t mail me first-messages of each thread / each topic” (not the same thing as a thread may change topic by having one of its participant changing its subject line). But it won’t be possible to set a such setting for someone who never subscribed, hence, never were exposed to such checkboxes. And my “receive only mail from threads where I have participated” idea was “only receive mails from threads I started”, and explicitly directed towards *unsubscribed* members. Also your “receive only mails from threads where I have participated” would require from the user, if not basing on the subject line, to download (and extract from the month-wide mbox file) the given mail, to answer it. Because otherwise they would never receive mails at all, then could never answer. Or then that would be a really special “subscription” where you never receive any mail at all, except answers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?
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 > such a practice, but I tried to read again Netiquitte and didn’t found > anything related [1]. People have different views on this. > Also that means if I didn’t subscribed to this > list (I almost didn’t, then did, since Evolution was my first mail > user-agent, a major one, and I might be interested in its, heh, > evolution) I would never have received an answer, Generally, if you write to a mailing list, you are expected to either be subscribed (in fact, you often can't send there without subscribing first), or politely request to be CCed in your email. Also, maybe you are not interested in receiving everything, but failing everything else you should at least check the archives for replies. (there are also other use cases, like people reading the mailing list through a mail2news gateway) Some mailing lists function differently, however, such as those support emails which are actually backed by a mailing list, in which the customer is not (and can not be) a subscriber. Thus, there it is known that the customer only receives emails explicitly directed to him, and Reply to all must be used. > as I believe neither > mailman nor sympa do have the (complicated) feature of keeping track of > subjects, references and reply-to headers so that to send to > unsubscribed senders to the mailing-list messages that answer or > references what they sent. Especially that would impedes the ability to > privately react and discuss about the sent may privately before to maybe > answer back a maybe more reflected and collective answer. Yet I guess > that too might be considered bad netiquette, as until then I only twice > were answered on a mailing list without having been directly mailed: > once before my mail, and once with this one. That would be a bad idea for a mailing list to do automatically. It should actually be a user subscription option. In addition to receive emails / don't receive / receive as a digest, you would have a "receive only mails from threads where I have participated" option. And yes, that would be a complicated feature to implement. > On all other mailing lists (mainly: GNU, my (associative) ISPs, as well > as administrative or political mailing lists) I’ve *always* be directed > (intentionnally or not) with “To” or “Cc” the mail. And several times > (especially for non-technical ones, where participant didn’t always knew > or were used to what was a mailing list) that helped keep some > (sometimes important to the discussion) people in the discussion. > > I always reply to list and drop all other recipients; I assume they > > are detritus accumulated from misconfigured mail clients. > > For me when “to” contain anything, that doesn’t only mean I want to send > the message there (that, in fact, would be detritus if the person is > knowledgably subscribed to the mailing list) but that also means the > message is *directed” to that person in the meaning that if I say “you” > there, that means anybody in the “To:” header, contrasted with anybody > in the “Cc:” header or to which I may show or afterward re-send the mail > (be it by some other protocol than SMTP). For instance, as I see you > didn’t (and asked for) not add(ing) the user personal address in “to”, I > consider I can’t personally address people in this mail, except to the > whole mailing list, then each time I say “you” in this mail that’s > either impersonal pronoun, either directed to the general audience of > the mailing list. I would consider that I am replying to the person whose text I am quoting above. (Or rather, i am probably replying to the *ideas* expressed therein, not as much as the human who typed them) Best regards ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?
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 privately to the sender”: “reply >> privately to the list”. > > 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 such a practice, but I tried to read again Netiquitte and didn’t found anything related [1]. Also that means if I didn’t subscribed to this list (I almost didn’t, then did, since Evolution was my first mail user-agent, a major one, and I might be interested in its, heh, evolution) I would never have received an answer, as I believe neither mailman nor sympa do have the (complicated) feature of keeping track of subjects, references and reply-to headers so that to send to unsubscribed senders to the mailing-list messages that answer or references what they sent. Especially that would impedes the ability to privately react and discuss about the sent may privately before to maybe answer back a maybe more reflected and collective answer. Yet I guess that too might be considered bad netiquette, as until then I only twice were answered on a mailing list without having been directly mailed: once before my mail, and once with this one. On all other mailing lists (mainly: GNU, my (associative) ISPs, as well as administrative or political mailing lists) I’ve *always* be directed (intentionnally or not) with “To” or “Cc” the mail. And several times (especially for non-technical ones, where participant didn’t always knew or were used to what was a mailing list) that helped keep some (sometimes important to the discussion) people in the discussion. > I always reply to list and drop all other recipients; I assume they > are detritus accumulated from misconfigured mail clients. For me when “to” contain anything, that doesn’t only mean I want to send the message there (that, in fact, would be detritus if the person is knowledgably subscribed to the mailing list) but that also means the message is *directed” to that person in the meaning that if I say “you” there, that means anybody in the “To:” header, contrasted with anybody in the “Cc:” header or to which I may show or afterward re-send the mail (be it by some other protocol than SMTP). For instance, as I see you didn’t (and asked for) not add(ing) the user personal address in “to”, I consider I can’t personally address people in this mail, except to the whole mailing list, then each time I say “you” in this mail that’s either impersonal pronoun, either directed to the general audience of the mailing list. My mail client (emacs) has several options to answer to messages, and I usually do this because I asked to people (on mailing lists) and they said me to do so so unsubscribed people can see the message, and I also found that added value of semantically signifying who your message is intended for. >> I think there should be a “reply to list and sender” (or differently >> named) feature that does answer to the list while staying addressed >> at the sender, as does my current user-agent with “wide reply”. > > This is not so simple to implement reliably as you might think; > determining which addresses are which, not across all mail list > software, hosting, etc... Simply: you put the original sender in the “to” header, and anything else, including the address in “list-post” (except if it’s already in “to” or “cc”) in “cc”, by default, and then possibly let the user alter this if they desire so. > Anyway Reply-To-List solves the problem. No because that loose semantical information, means something else, can do something else (discuss in private on the list) and exclude unsubscribed participant. > Some user's use of mail-filters is not a problem for other list > subscribers to solve. That might be a solution to *remove* mail, not to add/receive, so my proposition still is useful. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855#section-3.1.2 ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?
> “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 list”. Reply-To-List is the only option anyone should ever use, IMNSHO. Doing anything else is bad netiquette. I always reply to list and drop all other recipients; I assume they are detritus accumulated from misconfigured mail clients. > I think there should be a “reply to list and sender” (or differently > named) feature that does answer to the list while staying addressed > at the sender, as does my current user-agent with “wide reply”. This is not so simple to implement reliably as you might think; determining which addresses are which, not across all mail list software, hosting, etc... Anyway Reply-To-List solves the problem. Some user's use of mail-filters is not a problem for other list subscribers to solve. ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
[Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?
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 user-agent^Wx-mailer [1] header teached me they used Evolution) refered to me using “you” and “your” in their mail body. The mail only included the mailing-list address in the “To” header. I’m subscribed to a lot of mailing-lists and they get sorted in a lot of folders I rarely inspect. Through experience, I ended considering Primary Recipients (those in “To”) of a mail are those whom you refer using “you” and “your”, while the auxiliary ones (those in “Cc”) are whom you don’t, while still desire aknowledging the message. In this situation, I’d have expected to receive a mail with me in the “To” header, and the mailing-list address in the “Cc” (and eventual previously present-here addresses), as my current user-agent do with the command “wide reply” (by opposition with the simple reply which just do the same as your “reply in private” functionality). However, checking in Evolution, there is no command to do a such thing. Either there is “reply to all”, whose utility may still be to address everybody in the discussion, or “reply to list”, which may be useful to “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 list”. I think there should be a “reply to list and sender” (or differently named) feature that does answer to the list while staying addressed at the sender, as does my current user-agent with “wide reply”. I’m aware GNOME project particularely cares about ergonomy, usability/accessibility and simplicity. Then, without necessarily adding one or two actions, it may be the default (with tool-bar butter, highest in context menu) action. But that default behavior should be important for users who are not used to mailing-lists usages. In fact, sometimes, you want to write to a mailing-list without being interested in all the threads, so you don’t subscribe, and it is then important to add sender address in the “To” header. Fearing that people or User-Agent don’t automatically, for instance, I usually subscribe to all mailing-lists I write to (I might become interested in their content anyway), but I end with a lot of mail not ever reviewed then (I need a RDBM and filtering/mixing/priorization heuristics in my user-agent I believe). Thank you, and sorry for verbosity, it is because I believe there is much to say to the least required, which usually is the most important, and this matters to me. [1] Why X-Mailer instead of User-Agent? < ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
