Re: [Evolution] Mailing list?

On Sun, 2022-10-16 at 13:05 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > If Evolution sees that the replied-to message has the appropriate > list headers, it could simply turn Reply-To-All into Reply-To-List, > or just disable Reply-To-All. Hi, there are still legitimate use-cases for Reply-To-All

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list?

On Sat, 2022-10-15 at 22:55 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote: > Personally, I wish I could turn off users doing Reply-all to mailing > lists. I'd vote for that. In fact it wouldn't appear to be hard to do. If Evolution sees that the replied-to message has the appropriate list headers, it could simply turn

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list?

> > It depends on the list manager configuration. On most mailing lists I'm > subscribed to, if someone sends a message to the list with a Cc to me, I get > two copies of the message: one sent directly to me and the other coming > through the mailing list. On Mailman lists it's a user selectable

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list?

Dnia 15.10.2022 o godz. 13:48:14 Pete Biggs pisze: > > So, why are they not always there? Well it's a bit of a bugbear of mine > (and others). If someone does a Reply-all to the list on one of my > messages their mail program will send out a number of messages: to the > list; to me; to anyone

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list?

Thanks for that/those Pete, Very comprehensive (& understandable). Much appreciated. On Sat, 2022-10-15 at 13:55 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote: > > > > > > How are folders marked as filled from a mailing list? > > > > The "folders" don't know anything about it.  Folders are just > > containers and

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list?

> > > > How are folders marked as filled from a mailing list? > > The "folders" don't know anything about it. Folders are just > containers and are content agnostic. Sorry, replying to myself. I should say though that some specific folders have a special function - Trash, Sent, Junk etc. -

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list?

> > How are folders marked as filled from a mailing list? The "folders" don't know anything about it. Folders are just containers and are content agnostic. > > If I want to post messages to mailing lists, from the correct folder I > can use the menu option "Message->Mailing List->Post

[Evolution] Mailing list?

Hi, How are folders marked as filled from a mailing list? I have mail rules moving messages from (several) mailing lists to their own folders, that works for me in all cases. If I want to post messages to mailing lists, from the correct folder I can use the menu option "Message->Mailing

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 14:00 -0400, George Reeke wrote: > Please do not turn digests off.  Although I do not use > them on lists like this one, where I participate, I find them very > useful on other lists where I just want to keep up a bit and would > rather not be bothered with all the individual

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Sun, 2017-03-19 at 12:59 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > And to get this back on topic a bit.  We still haven't heard from > > anyone who uses digests as to why they prefer to use them. > > IIRC at least one digest user mentioned that s/he only sometimes read > mails from lists, which actually

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Sun, 2017-03-19 at 11:26 +, Pete Biggs wrote: > Patrick, what was the result of your tests about moderating replies to > digests? So far no-one has replied to a digest so the question is still open. I'm tempted to think that a lot of people are just archiving digests and not reading them,

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Sun, 2017-03-19 at 11:26 +, Pete Biggs wrote: > It's so bad that, as others have said, it has now become the > "standard" in business circles to top post and include absolutely > everything from the message they are replying to What I dislike a little bit are HTML formatted private mails

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

Off-topic: Something about _real issues_, one issue by it's nature affects Evolution, too. An issue for the iOS MUA is that it seems not to support plain text, instead it does enforce multipart and the plain text of the multipart is without automatic line breaks. IIRC all web interfaces, at

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

> > Maybe, I don't know, but more common is that users have the choice, to > _not_ add the quoted messages as an attachment, so usually only the > cursor position might be on top. It's entirely down to the users - Outlook is perfectly capable of doing things, err, "properly", but users

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 03:56:04 -0600, Anton W. Schenker wrote: >Sorry, I don't really have a solution for you. Perhaps someone else can >think of something. I'm neither using digest, nor do I often use a mobile device to read mails. As you already pointed out, a solution would be to have a

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Sun, 2017-03-19 at 10:19 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 02:34:26 -0600, Anton W. Schenker wrote: > > (and preferably *not* top posted, although I have sadly given up on > > that...Thanks Microsoft Outlook and Gmail and Yahoo mail) > > When I needed to use Outlook express (I

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Sun, 2017-03-19 at 10:08 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > You also might ask, why using POP instead of IMAP. Speaking for me, I > want to locally store mails, to read them off-line, as well as having my > own mail archive. Offline IMAP for several reasons is no option. You've said this a number of

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Sun, 2017-03-19 at 10:19 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 02:34:26 -0600, Anton W. Schenker wrote: > > (and preferably *not* top posted, although I have sadly given up on > > that...Thanks Microsoft Outlook and Gmail and Yahoo mail) > > When I needed to use Outlook express (I

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Sun, 2017-03-19 at 10:08 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Sun, 2017-03-19 at 02:34 -0600, Anton W. Schenker wrote: > > I fail to understand the difficulties of setting up separate > > mailboxes, (or mail folders), on ANY platform, but I set up my mail > > filters server-side. > > Hi, > I'm

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 02:34:26 -0600, Anton W. Schenker wrote: >(and preferably *not* top posted, although I have sadly given up on >that...Thanks Microsoft Outlook and Gmail and Yahoo mail) When I needed to use Outlook express (I never used Outlook), I wasn't forced to top post. I have got

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Sun, 2017-03-19 at 02:34 -0600, Anton W. Schenker wrote: > I fail to understand the difficulties of setting up separate > mailboxes, (or mail folders), on ANY platform, but I set up my mail > filters server-side. Hi, I'm still not against disabling digest, I only want to explain the

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Tue, 2017-03-14 at 14:45 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 09:20:39 -0400, Krzysztof Adamski wrote: > > I try to only use open source applications for my email reading,  > > Evolution, K9 on Android and Pine on Linux over ssh. > > > > My point which you missed is that Evolution

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 11:46 +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 02:31 +0100, Ángel wrote: > > On 2017-03-16 at 00:44 +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > > Even if we assume this is a reliable way to catch replies to digests, > > > there is nothing in the Mailman admin

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 01:10 +0100, Ángel wrote: > On 2017-03-13 at 12:25 -0700, Brewster Gillett wrote: > > So for example, if I fetch my current traffic, and my "Evolution" > > folder shows three new > > messages, and I'm too busy to tend to them at the moment, I just > > ignore them; every

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 02:31 +0100, Ángel wrote: > On 2017-03-16 at 00:44 +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > Even if we assume this is a reliable way to catch replies to digests, > > there is nothing in the Mailman admin interface to specify filtering > > criteria, other than a) non-membership

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On 2017-03-16 at 00:44 +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > Even if we assume this is a reliable way to catch replies to digests, > there is nothing in the Mailman admin interface to specify filtering > criteria, other than a) non-membership of the list, or b) message body > is too large (40k

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On 2017-03-13 at 12:25 -0700, Brewster Gillett wrote: > So for example, if I fetch my current traffic, and my "Evolution" > folder shows three new > messages, and I'm too busy to tend to them at the moment, I just > ignore them; every subsequent > time I open Evolution, that reminder will still

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 01:22 +0100, Ángel wrote: > On 2017-03-14 at 09:54 +, Pete Biggs wrote: > > If digests are kept, are other mitigations possible. Like: > > > > Is there a way to enforce mime digests? > > > > And is there a way to make the boilerplate at the top of the > > digest

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On 2017-03-14 at 09:54 +, Pete Biggs wrote: > If digests are kept, are other mitigations possible. Like: > > Is there a way to enforce mime digests? > > And is there a way to make the boilerplate at the top of the > digest more "robust" on the issue of replying to a digest? > >

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 09:20:39 -0400, Krzysztof Adamski wrote: >I try to only use open source applications for my email reading, >Evolution, K9 on Android and Pine on Linux over ssh. > >My point which you missed is that Evolution is not available >everywhere, and expecting everybody to be able to

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

and expecting everybody to be able to filter mail based on what is > available in Evolution is unreasonable. Nothing I said is specific to Evolution. Every MUA supports filtering, including the ones you mentioned. I still don't understand the point you're trying to make. This is a discussion a

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On 13/03/17 05:53 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 16:04 -0400, Krzysztof Adamski wrote: Is there an Evolution client for Android? Not all email reading is done in Evolution. Why do you need an Evolution for Android? I read my mail on Linux with Evolution, on other

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Tue, 2017-03-14 at 09:54 +, Pete Biggs wrote: > If digests are kept, are other mitigations possible. Like: > Is there a way to enforce mime digests? Not to my knowledge. > And is there a way to make the boilerplate at the top of the > digest more "robust" on the issue of replying

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 18:01 -0400, George Reeke wrote: > On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 21:56 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > If a lot of users actually should use digest, then digest shouldn't be > > dropped. If just a few users should actually use digest, it doesn't > > make sense to keep it, as long

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

> > > > As far as I have ever seen, those numbers in parens after each > > folder bear no relationship to whether I have read the messages > > or not. Maybe this is because I mostly read them in the preview > > window and don't double click on them to read them in their own > > window? The

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 18:01 -0400, George Reeke wrote: > On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 21:56 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > If a lot of users actually should use digest, then digest shouldn't be > > dropped. If just a few users should actually use digest, it doesn't > > make sense to keep it, as long as

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 21:56 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > If a lot of users actually should use digest, then digest shouldn't be > dropped. If just a few users should actually use digest, it doesn't > make sense to keep it, as long as at least not one person really needs > digest for a good

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 21:56 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > IMO it would be useful to know how many users receive digest for this > mailing list and want to continue using digest. As to the first part of that question, the admin interface for Mailman shows the digest flag per user, but AFAIK there

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 16:04 -0400, Krzysztof Adamski wrote: > Is there an Evolution client for Android? Not all email reading is done > in Evolution. Why do you need an Evolution for Android? I read my mail on Linux with Evolution, on other platforms with the Google webmail, on my Android phone

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

Workflow related arguments pro and con disabling digest lead to nothing. Indeed, we are not always using Evolution. While tablet PC MUAs often don't provide good folder and filter options, they usually default to one inbox with mails sorted by threads. The broken threads caused by digest users

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On 13/03/17 03:32 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 18:00 +, Pete Biggs wrote: Why should we eliminate digests? 1. I know of no-one who still uses dial-up UUCP for their mail feed. Even a basic "always-on" Internet service is orders of magnitude faster

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

> Brewster replies: > > George, I'm not sure you're fully utilizing Evolution's capabilities. > When I fire up Evolution, I see my > entire list of folders, first thing. So I don't understand your > phraseology "look in all those other folders > to see if something has arrived". I have dozens

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 18:00 +, Pete Biggs wrote: > > > > Why should we eliminate digests? > > > >1. I know of no-one who still uses dial-up UUCP for their mail feed. > > Even a basic "always-on" Internet service is orders of magnitude > > faster than a Hayes modem so the

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

> Pete Biggs wrote: > > So filter them into a different folder so they don't clutter your > > inbox. I am a member of numerous mailing lists - not a single one > > appears in my inbox, they all end up in their own folder. (For > > efficiency, I do it on my server, but it's no different to doing

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

Quoting Ralf Mardorf : there could be reasons to prefer digest. You already mentioned one of those reasons, a "broken" Internet access. Actually I can't remember that I really ever needed digest, especially not for this mailing list. Ditto. I get what they are for ...

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 18:05:32 + Pete Biggs wrote: > So filter them into a different folder so they don't clutter your > inbox. I used to do that, but I then found that I rarely looked at them, and when I did, there were far too many emails to read. A daily summary straight

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 18:05 +, Pete Biggs wrote: > > I already sent this reply to the previous thread but am repeating > > it here for the record, with an added sentence: > > > > Please do not turn digests off. Although I do not use > > them on lists like this one, where I participate, I

Re: [Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

Hi, there could be reasons to prefer digest. You already mentioned one of those reasons, a "broken" Internet access. Actually I can't remember that I really ever needed digest, especially not for this mailing list. Sometimes replies to digest could be really annoying, OTOH such replies aren't

[Evolution] Proposal: to eliminate the digest option for the Evolution mailing list

Hi all I'm one of the list moderators for the Evolution list. Occasionally new users on signing up for the list select the "Digest" option for receiving list traffic. What's a Digest? Digests are an ancient mechanism for batching list messages into a daily briefing, with a view to reducing the

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list moderators wanted

On Sun, 2015-04-26 at 23:31 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: Hey, I am the only person listed as moderator of evolution-list@ and evolution-hackers@. And that's not good if I go on offline holidays. It's important to have more than one moderator per mailing list, so I'm looking for someone to

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list moderators wanted

Hi, On Sun, 2015-04-26 at 23:31 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: I am the only person listed as moderator of evolution-list@ and evolution-hackers@. And that's not good if I go on offline holidays. It's important to have more than one moderator per mailing list, so I'm looking for someone to

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list moderators wanted

On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 22:30 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: As a random criterion I looked at the activity of the last four years. And the sheer number of postings by Patrick O'Callaghan and Adam Tauno Williams is highly impressive, so they are now list moderators. :) But thank you to

[Evolution] Mailing list moderators wanted

Hey, I am the only person listed as moderator of evolution-list@ and evolution-hackers@. And that's not good if I go on offline holidays. It's important to have more than one moderator per mailing list, so I'm looking for someone to help with moderation. It's pretty low maintenance (declining

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 10:03 -0400, Paul Smith wrote: On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 14:22 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: But again, it's common sense on most lists It's not common sense, in any way. Someone who's never used mailing lists before will not just inherently understand this without needing

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 19:26 +, Justin Musgrove wrote: Thank you all, for the fire-hose of information concerning mailing-list netiquettes and good practice methods. I, being a *newbie* to mailing-lists, not *nix in general, now have full understanding to the pros and cons in regard to

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 09:48 +, Pete Biggs wrote: snip That's why I dislike being directly sent replies to mailing list posts. It breaks things for me; it makes things difficult for me. And I can explicitly say I don't want it to happen until I'm blue in the face, but it won't make any

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 09:48 +, Pete Biggs wrote: (If that seems odd, remember that the person who replies cannot know if you're subscribed to the list or not, so it's horribly rude of them to *drop* you from the direct recipients and potentially cut you out of the conversation. See

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 00:48 +, David Woodhouse wrote: Btw, when replying to a message in Evolution try selecting just the part of the email you want to reply to, then hit reply while it's selected. I think that should override the normal reply behaviour, shouldn't it? That's a nice

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 14:22 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: But again, it's common sense on most lists It's not common sense, in any way. Someone who's never used mailing lists before will not just inherently understand this without needing instruction. Rather, it's a learned behavior that is

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

such as Evolution, Claws and tons of others are able to invoke mailing list replies by simply using the Reply or Group Reply option. Btw. I didn't receive two messages from you, since I set up my Evolution mailing list account to avoid duplicated messages, the drawback of this is, that the mail I

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

It depends on the mailing list settings. There is a per user setting on many mailing lists of Avoid duplicate messages. With that you don't receive the list copy if you are listed in the To: or Cc: headers. Which is good, because you don't get two copies; but it's bad because the

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 09:48 +, Pete Biggs wrote: It depends on the mailing list settings. There is a per user setting on many mailing lists of Avoid duplicate messages. With that you don't receive the list copy if you are listed in the To: or Cc: headers. Which is good, because you don't

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

Will the mailman ignore/bitbucket those messages that the source address is not subscribed? I believe they are held for moderation. P. ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:49:48 +, Pete Biggs wrote: Will the mailman ignore/bitbucket those messages that the source address is not subscribed? I believe they are held for moderation. For some mailman lists they are held for moderation, for other lists they are rejected [3]. Some lists

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

Hi, there's a big problem with the way a mailing list handles mails and the way different MUAs handle mailing list mails. The least common denominator is that we should only reply to the mailing list and not to anybody else, we also shouldn't post to more than one list by one email. Let me

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 13:07 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: Hi, there's a big problem with the way a mailing list handles mails and the way different MUAs handle mailing list mails. The least common denominator is that we should only reply to the mailing list and not to anybody else, we also

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 13:07 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: However, IMO it's important to find the least common denominator that works for most MUAs. For mailing lists the rule is, that most of the times a reply should be send to the mailing list only. [citation needed] There are just a few

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 12:44 +, Justin Musgrove wrote: On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 00:48 +, David Woodhouse wrote: Btw, when replying to a message in Evolution try selecting just the part of the email you want to reply to, then hit reply while it's selected. I think that should

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 15:47 +, David Woodhouse wrote: On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 14:07 +, Pete Biggs wrote: Not that it particularly matters, my server-side filters already filter the Evolution list on To: and Cc: headers because I couldn't rely on the list headers. I have a choice you

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 14:07 +, Pete Biggs wrote: Not that it particularly matters, my server-side filters already filter the Evolution list on To: and Cc: headers because I couldn't rely on the list headers. I have a choice you see - either I get things in my Inbox, which is full enough as

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:32:23 +, David Woodhouse wrote: There, is that a reasonable summary? No, because there are no clear rules and several solutions to handle things, but without rules different MUAs, different mailing list settings and different workflows from users, it's a mess. It's

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

David Woodhouse, don't mix up kernel development mailing lists with averaged user and averaged developer mailing lists. Mailing lists are mainly for subscribers. Interested people usually subscribe and people who aren't subscribed usually don't want to receive mails related to a list they don't

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

Thank you all, for the fire-hose of information concerning mailing-list netiquettes and good practice methods. I, being a *newbie* to mailing-lists, not *nix in general, now have full understanding to the pros and cons in regard to different style message replies. From what I can conclude, there

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

(If that seems odd, remember that the person who replies cannot know if you're subscribed to the list or not, so it's horribly rude of them to *drop* you from the direct recipients and potentially cut you out of the conversation. See http://david.woodhou.se/reply-to-list.html ) Hmm, *I*

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 08:39 +0100, Milan Crha wrote: Hi, you mentioned in another email in this thread that you use evolution-ews. That reminded me of: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=671893 which your version contains, but also of:

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 16:01 +, Justin Musgrove wrote: For now, I added another condition Recipients, contains, evolution-list@gnome.org You're liable to get false positives with that one. When someone replies to a thread you're actively participating in, you should normally get a message

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 17:46 +, Justin Musgrove wrote: My apologizes for my ignorance with using an incorrect method. Is there a method in evolution to prompt a different reply methods in lieu of the global option? The default settings for replying and forwarding can be changed under

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

I think the OP may have been asking if there is a way to do this differently according to the kind of message. That could be a useful option, e.g. when replying to a list versus a non-list message. Given that HTML seems the prevalent form these days, in part being the default for

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 09:49 +, Pete Biggs wrote: I think the OP may have been asking if there is a way to do this differently according to the kind of message. That could be a useful option, e.g. when replying to a list versus a non-list message. Given that HTML seems the

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

Hi, On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 17:46 +, Justin Musgrove wrote: My apologizes for my ignorance with using an incorrect method. Is there a method in evolution to prompt a different reply methods in lieu of the global option? The default settings for replying and forwarding can be changed under

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 16:25 +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 16:01 +, Justin Musgrove wrote: That sounds like an excellent idea. I will start doing the same. For now, I added another condition Recipients, contains, evolution-list@gnome.org Please note that

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 19:56 +0100, Andre Klapper wrote: Hi, On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 17:46 +, Justin Musgrove wrote: My apologizes for my ignorance with using an incorrect method. Is there a method in evolution to prompt a different reply methods in lieu of the global option? The

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

Am Freitag, den 13.03.2015, 13:43 + schrieb Justin Musgrove: First off, I am new to the Mailing Lists, so the issue that I am having is probably related more to user error. Using Evolution 3.8.5 on CentOS 7. My issue is that I setup a Mailing List Filter for this Evolution mailing

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

My issue is that I setup a Mailing List Filter for this Evolution mailing list, but the filter isn't working automatically. If I press ctrl-y then the message is processed properly. Filter should move the incoming emails to a folder. I used the context menu (CreateCreate a Filter Rule

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

rules on the server. I'm sure I am just over looking something. -JM ---BeginMessage--- My issue is that I setup a Mailing List Filter for this Evolution mailing list, but the filter isn't working automatically. If I press ctrl-y then the message is processed properly. Filter should move

[Evolution] Mailing list filters

First off, I am new to the Mailing Lists, so the issue that I am having is probably related more to user error. Using Evolution 3.8.5 on CentOS 7. My issue is that I setup a Mailing List Filter for this Evolution mailing list, but the filter isn't working automatically. If I press ctrl-y

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

is that I setup a Mailing List Filter for this Evolution mailing list, but the filter isn't working automatically. If I press ctrl-y then the message is processed properly. Filter should move the incoming emails to a folder. I used the context menu (CreateCreate a Filter Rule for Mailing

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 16:01 +, Justin Musgrove wrote: That sounds like an excellent idea. I will start doing the same. For now, I added another condition Recipients, contains, evolution-list@gnome.org Please note that when replying on mailing lists such as this one, the usual practice is

Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

: First off, I am new to the Mailing Lists, so the issue that I am having is probably related more to user error. Using Evolution 3.8.5 on CentOS 7. My issue is that I setup a Mailing List Filter for this Evolution mailing list, but the filter isn't working automatically. If I press

[Evolution] mailing-list

ready? ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list

[Evolution] mailing list

Please remove my name from Evolution mailing list. dleh...@hwy.39.net Thank you David Lehr ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list

Re: [Evolution] mailing list

Done On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 10:54 -0400, David Lehr wrote: Please remove my name from Evolution mailing list. dleh...@hwy.39.net Thank you David Lehr ___ signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [Evolution] mailing list

On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 10:54 -0400, David Lehr wrote: Please remove my name from Evolution mailing list. dleh...@hwy.39.net Thank you David Lehr ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman

[Evolution] Mailing list reply conventions

I'm asking this because I'm wondering how users on this list prefer to have their messages replied to... I could use Reply to List, which puts evolution-list@gnome.org into the To field, or I could use Reply All, which puts the original sender in the To box and the list in the CC box... using

Re: [Evolution] Mailing List test

ACK. poc On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 16:31 +0200, guenther wrote: This is a quick test only. Please, can one or two subscribers Reply To All to this post? The reason for this is, that I observed a change in list server configuration. The last Replys To All I got (including me as well as the