On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 10:14 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
An obvious solution to this is to do what Kmail does. When the message
being replied to contains a List-Post header, Ctrl-R should do the same
as Ctrl-L. There should also be a Reply-To-Author command for the rare
case when the
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 09:15 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
And I think it extremely rude for someone to effectively say I want to
say something but I can't be arsed to find out what anyone else has to
say. My time is more important than yours so please send the messages
directly to me to save me the
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 16:46 +1000, Andrew Cowie wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 10:14 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
An obvious solution to this is to do what Kmail does. When the message
being replied to contains a List-Post header, Ctrl-R should do the same
as Ctrl-L. There should also be
Remember, the existing reply-to-list operation *already* falls back
to replying to all if it can't find a List-Post: header.
No it doesn't.
The operation *does*. You're getting confused by the fact that the
current menu items get disabled when you're not looking at a list
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 11:09 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
Remember, the existing reply-to-list operation *already* falls back
to replying to all if it can't find a List-Post: header.
No it doesn't.
The operation *does*. You're getting confused by the fact that the
current menu
The operation *does*. You're getting confused by the fact that the
current menu items get disabled when you're not looking at a list
message.
But actually, some lists don't have a List-Post: header. If there are
*any* List-* headers, you'll see the list operations get
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 12:44 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
OK. So it's not just any List-*: header, there's a specific list of
headers it needs (with specific formats in some cases). Fine, that
explains why my test didn't work. Thanks for explaining it.
Arguably we should fix things so that it's
El jue, 15-07-2010 a las 16:09 +0100, David Woodhouse escribió:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:42 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
And there are probably an equal number who believe the contrary, like
me, but let's not argue about it. I think Paul's suggestion that the
default behaviour for
What I would like is for the Reply-to-List to be more prominent to
encourage people to use that rather than just blindly replying to the
user.
Certainly I'm with you on the 'rather than just blindly replying to the
user' bit -- there's now a pop-up which will say you're replying in
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 15:12 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
What I would like is for the Reply-to-List to be more prominent to
encourage people to use that rather than just blindly replying to the
user.
Certainly I'm with you on the 'rather than just blindly replying to the
user' bit
OT: This is just to note that David's last reply has now fallen off the
right-hand edge of my (landscape-mode) screen, i.e. I can't see even the
first character of the Subject. Hurray for nested threads!
So there's another topic to take up when we're done with the list
issue :-)
poc
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 11:45 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
OT: This is just to note that David's last reply has now fallen off the
right-hand edge of my (landscape-mode) screen, i.e. I can't see even the
first character of the Subject.
Do you mean the 'R' for 'Reply' which is the first
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 15:12 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
What I think is rude and unacceptable are the people who write a
message to a list where *they* are asking for help and they say don't
forget to CC: me in any replies because I don't want to read the
list. If you are asking for help, at
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 16:57 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 11:15 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 16:09 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:42 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
And there are probably an equal number who
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 17:21 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 11:45 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
OT: This is just to note that David's last reply has now fallen off the
right-hand edge of my (landscape-mode) screen, i.e. I can't see even the
first character of the
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 17:21 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 11:45 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
OT: This is just to note that David's last reply has now fallen off the
right-hand edge of my (landscape-mode) screen, i.e. I can't see even the
first character of the
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 12:12 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Perhaps you should post your detailed proposal (including an
explanation of the nags) to the BZ page to make it more
official (and more likely to be seen by the Evo devels).
I just noticed you already did this before I replied.
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 12:12 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Perhaps the reply to all nag could have a configurable threshold, but
it's no big deal.
Yeah, I thought about that too, but couldn't be bothered. It's only a
prompt to make you think; it doesn't have to be precise.
Besides, the kind
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 18:43 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 12:12 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Perhaps the reply to all nag could have a configurable threshold, but
it's no big deal.
Yeah, I thought about that too, but couldn't be bothered. It's only a
prompt to
The problem with that suggestion is that there are people (including
myself) who firmly believe that the right thing to do with a list
message is to *include* the original sender when replying, unless you're
sure they don't want you to.
And I very firmly believe that CC'ing someone who is
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 11:57 +0200, Kåre Fiedler Christiansen wrote:
First: Apologies, Pete, I accidentally replied off-list. Honestly, I
didn't mean to. I just clicked the wrong reply button (the one I used
the most).
:-)
I would be strongly against any implementation that
My current inclination is to head down the KISS route - just put a
Reply-to-list button on the toolbar that might possibly be greyed out if
there is no list info. That seems to be simple, quick and easy to
implement - it's just a patch to an XML file.
In fact I've just done it:
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 09:15 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
Let's not argue about that too much -- we won't make any progress. Let's
just recognise that this 'DTRT' thing that you suggest is hard when we
can't agree on what TRT is.
Yes, but all your solutions seem to implement it the way *you*
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 13:24 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
And it's *already* simple for the user to choose if they're using the
keyboard shortcuts or the menu; it's only the toolbar that really needs
attention, as you say.
Fine. So what's the point of all this discussion then? Just change
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 13:00 +1000, Nick Jenkins wrote:
OK, let's summarize (RT = Reply-To address, LP = List-Post
address,
SA = Sender or From Address, CC = CC addresses):
This all far too complicated.
Agreed. If it's a user-facing change that too complicated to
understand
easily
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 12:01 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 10:14 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Note: this is a comment on Evo itself, rather than the Evo list.
As someone who posts quite a lot on this list, I'm forever having to
deal with people replying to
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 16:09 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:42 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
And there are probably an equal number who believe the contrary, like
me, but let's not argue about it. I think Paul's suggestion that the
default behaviour for Reply
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 11:15 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 16:09 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:42 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
And there are probably an equal number who believe the contrary, like
me, but let's not argue about it. I
But Reply-to-All is useful, I don't want it to become a Reply-in-Public.
And the term Public is horrible - many of the lists I am on are private
lists, the reply is most definitely not public and it will just confuse
people.
Remember, we're *only* talking about the toolbar button.
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 18:22 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
because even though your normal
preference is to reply-to-list on list messages, you might *sometimes*
want to reply-to-all on a list message instead?
No, I need to reply all for normal messages - life isn't just about
lists :-)
That
Also I need a reply all for list messages when I get a CC: copy without
the list headers in the message.
When you get a Cc copy without the list headers in the message, that
*isn't* a list message in any meaningful sense of the term -- it's a
direct message.
Yes, I understand that -
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 20:54 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
My understanding *was* that those people who wanted reply-to-list
would
want to use it for *all* lists. Remember, the existing reply-to-list
operation *already* falls back to replying to all if it can't find a
List-Post: header.
No it
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 21:28 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
Remember, the existing reply-to-list operation *already* falls back
to replying to all if it can't find a List-Post: header.
No it doesn't.
The operation *does*. You're getting confused by the fact that the
current menu items get
I like your picture, I think that way is fine to me.
Sylvia
El jue, 15-07-2010 a las 16:57 +0100, David Woodhouse escribió:
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 11:15 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 16:09 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:42 -0430, Patrick
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 22:36 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
GNOME's HIG generally forbids changing menus and toolbars on the fly
like that, and I tend to agree.
Does that include changing the name of the 'Reply' button to read
'Private Reply'? I've got a patch for that, but I was dubious about
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 08:50 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
Does that include changing the name of the 'Reply' button to read
'Private Reply'? I've got a patch for that, but I was dubious about that
anyway just because it changes the size of the button.
I would say so. Main window's toolbar
Claws Mail has an interesting approach to this problem. They define
dedicated Reply to Sender and Reply to List actions in their menus,
but also a generic Reply action whose behavior for a mailing list post
is determined by a user preference:
[ ] Reply button invokes mailing list
El mié, 14-07-2010 a las 07:39 -0400, Matthew Barnes escribió:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 08:50 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
Does that include changing the name of the 'Reply' button to read
'Private Reply'? I've got a patch for that, but I was dubious about that
anyway just because it
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 13:36 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
[ ] Reply button invokes mailing list reply
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The user can *already* express a
preference, by moving their hand an inch or two to the left or right and
hitting a different (key|menu
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 07:39 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 08:50 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
Does that include changing the name of the 'Reply' button to read
'Private Reply'? I've got a patch for that, but I was dubious about that
anyway just because it changes the
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 09:02 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 13:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
Then we can debate an appropriate default for the preference.
If we're exposing it in the UI *instead* of the existing 'Reply' action,
then it really *has* to be private by
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 19:04 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 18:58 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
[...]
I don't know about anyone else but I'm a bit lost. It seems like it
shouldn't be too difficult to collect all the current relevant behavior
into one table and then
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 12:09 +1000, Nick Jenkins wrote:
I quite like the toolbar buttons, and people who are newer to Evo will
probably use them more too. So maybe the toolbar buttons can be
changed,
but only when there's the appropriate list headers? Example toolbar
buttons:
Normal email:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 07:39 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 08:50 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
Does that include changing the name of the 'Reply' button to read
'Private Reply'? I've got a patch for that, but I was dubious about that
anyway just because it changes the
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:18 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
GRRR - reply-to-list doesn't even work on the reply you sent because
you did a reply-to-all and I never got the list version of the message,
only the direct message. Hence the Reply to all is NO SUBSTITUTE for
Reply to list.
This
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 13:54 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
All of the direct replies from experienced users are usually
followed
within a few minutes by another email saying something like Sorry,
I
replied directly to you in my haste, that should have gone to the
list.
Experienced
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:18 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
GRRR - reply-to-list doesn't even work on the reply you sent because
you did a reply-to-all and I never got the list version of the
message,
only the direct message. Hence the Reply to all is NO SUBSTITUTE for
Reply to list.
This
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 09:05 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Experienced users do make mistakes, and may well have disabled the nag
pop-up which saves the novice users. But still this is a *much* better
failure mode than accidentally sending stuff to the list which should
have been
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 09:01 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 13:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
In general, those who are sophisticated enough to preconfigure
anything are perfectly capable of hitting the right buttons in the
first place. There doesn't seem to be a
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:42 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
The point of the suggested changes is to make it easier for
*anyone*
to do the right thing in the most common case without having to
think
about it.
The problem is that you *cannot* get it right in all circumstances.
Of course
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 09:30 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:40 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
I thought we were past that.
So did I, but we are *still* seeing proposals which would replace the
existing private Reply button with a new Reply button that
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 15:30 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 09:30 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:40 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
I thought we were past that.
So did I, but we are *still* seeing proposals which would replace the
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 10:47 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
1. Nag popup for you are replying privately to a mailing list message
2. Nag popup for you are replying to all, to many recipients
Both of these are OK, as long as the usual conditions apply, i.e. the
state is represented
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 16:32 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
In fact I think mostly you don't, but when you do (on munged lists)
you really do.
The current option, if enabled, *only* takes effect on munged lists.
Specifically, it will only ignore a Reply-To: address if that address
matches
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 11:15 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 16:32 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
In fact I think mostly you don't, but when you do (on munged lists)
you really do.
The current option, if enabled, *only* takes effect on munged lists.
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 17:04 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
I don't mind another option but it's not the whole solution. On
munged
lists (the Fedora list is the prime example) I almost always just
hit
Ctrl-L, but on the rare occasions I want to communicate privately to
the
sender
I
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 12:25 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
OK, let's summarize (RT = Reply-To address, LP = List-Post address,
SA = Sender or From Address, CC = CC addresses):
Personal Reply Non-Munged List Munged List
w/o Option Munged List with
OK, let's summarize (RT = Reply-To address, LP = List-Post address,
SA = Sender or From Address, CC = CC addresses):
Personal Reply Non-Munged List Munged List w/o
Option Munged List with Option
Ctrl-Rto RT to RT
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:34 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
Ctrl-R: Uses the Reply-To: header if valid, else the From: header.
Ctrl-Shift-R: Uses the same as Ctrl-R, and adds the Cc: recipients.
Ctrl-L: Uses the List-Post: header if valid, else same as Ctrl-Shift-R.
I feel like I'm trailing
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 19:15 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
OK, let's summarize (RT = Reply-To address, LP = List-Post address,
SA = Sender or From Address, CC = CC addresses):
Personal Reply Non-Munged List Munged List w/o
Option Munged List with Option
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:27 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
snip
What I'd really like to see is a reply publicly operation, which is
the standard one that is used by default (the standard key binding and
the standard button), which by default does the right thing to create
a public reply to the
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:34 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
Personal Reply Non-Munged List
Munged List w/o Option Munged List with Option
Ctrl-R to RT to RT to
RT to SA
Ctrl-L to RT+CC
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:27 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
What I'd really like to see is a reply publicly operation, which is
the standard one that is used by default (the standard key binding and
the standard button), which by default does the right thing to
create a public reply to the message,
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 15:21 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:34 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
Personal Reply Non-Munged List
Munged List w/o Option Munged List with Option
Ctrl-R to RT to RT
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 16:20 -0400, George Reeke wrote:
I've been trying to follow all this but am missing a key concept--
could someone just tell me and anybody else who doesn't already know:
what is a munged list?
A munged list is one where the mailing list software resets the
Reply-To:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 20:47 +0200, Kåre Fiedler Christiansen wrote:
A preference that lets you select your preferred default reply
publicly operation would be nice as well (I think we have something
like that for forward). The values could be Best effort (default),
All recipients, etc.
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:51 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
How is that different from the table (with your amendments)?
It's not. It's just a simpler way of saying it. An even simpler way is:
- Ctrl-R replies privately to the sender, using their Reply-To: or From:
- Ctrl-Shift-R replies to
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 08:52 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
I'm quite reluctant to change toolbar layout depending on the message.
It will work for the inexpert user who consciously looks at the toolbar,
but for many people clicking on an icon is a reflex action and muscle
memory of where
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 17:15 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
What I'm suggesting is that we retarget Reply to All (Shift-Ctrl-R)
and the button to be, instead Reply Publicly (or you can keep it named
Reply to All for all I care).
OK, I can agree with that.
This button would DTRT based on the
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 17:15 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
What I'm suggesting is that we retarget Reply to All (Shift-Ctrl-R)
and the button to be, instead Reply Publicly (or you can keep it named
Reply to All for all I care). This button would DTRT based on the
message, to send a public reply.
The real target of this automatic behaviour would be the clueless
users who don't really think about what they're doing -- yes?
Plus more importantly the vast silent majority of people, who want their
email client to have sensible defaults, so they can just start using it
for its intended
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 23:31 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
This button would DTRT based on the message, to send a public
reply.
So, in this mode replies to mailing lists with List-Post headers
would
go there only. Otherwise it behaves as today.
The problem with that suggestion is that
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 23:45 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 18:25 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 10:14 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
[...]
I've filed an Enhancement Request at
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624204
Feel free
Can reply be assumed that it can point to mailing-list or may be if the
software knows its a mailing-list, would it be better to say ReplyToList
instead of Reply ? In this case speaking about the tool-bar options, not
the short-cuts.
Yes, can it not be implemented by changing the Reply to
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 10:14 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Note: this is a comment on Evo itself, rather than the Evo list.
As someone who posts quite a lot on this list, I'm forever having to
deal with people replying to my personal address rather than the list
address. Of course they
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 11:13 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 10:14 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Note: this is a comment on Evo itself, rather than the Evo list.
As someone who posts quite a lot on this list, I'm forever having to
deal with people replying to my
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 09:07 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Well, no. I'm advocating:
- Reply To Author to reply to you alone.
- Reply To All to CC the author and reply to the list (the reverse of
the current situation).
Ah -- so a purely cosmetic change, just moving recipients
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 14:46 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 09:07 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Well, no. I'm advocating:
- Reply To Author to reply to you alone.
- Reply To All to CC the author and reply to the list (the reverse of
the current situation).
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 14:46 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 09:07 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Well, no. I'm advocating:
- Reply To Author to reply to you alone.
- Reply To All to CC the author and reply to the list (the reverse of
the current situation).
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 09:31 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Note that I'm sending this to you, CC the list (using Shift-Ctrl-R). How
are you receiving it?
One copy came straight to me, and landed in my inbox (intact).
Another copy came to me via the list, and because it arrived with
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 14:46 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 09:07 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Well, no. I'm advocating:
- Reply To Author to reply to you alone.
- Reply To All to CC the author and reply to the list (the reverse of
the current situation).
Ah --
For some bizarre reason, the copy that came back to me through mailman
had stripped you from Cc. Yay for munging. :)
I think that's because Mailman removes duplicates. If you weren't on the
list you would have received the CC, but as you are, you don't. It's not
munging as such within the
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 10:08 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
Reply To List.
.. won't some people still want the 'Reply to List only' option?
Yes, at least me.
A reply to a list should go to the list, full stop, end of story; at
least IMO.
Of course. That's exactly what I proposed.
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 09:34 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 14:46 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 09:07 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Well, no. I'm advocating:
- Reply To Author to reply to you alone.
- Reply To All to CC the
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 10:12 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
For some bizarre reason, the copy that came back to me through mailman
had stripped you from Cc. Yay for munging. :)
I think that's because Mailman removes duplicates. If you weren't on the
list you would have received the CC,
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 15:17 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
There is no Reply To List Only. There's Reply To List, and that's
what
they'll get with Ctrl-R. How would a Reply To List Only be
different?
Um, sorry if I'm being dim... but that's what they'll get with
Ctrl-R
seems different to
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 10:12 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
No no no. Reply To Author is a reply to the author (sender) of the
message, i.e. what you get currently with Ctrl-R, and what you'll still
get with Ctrl-R when it's not a list message. This is very explicit in
the original proposal.
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 15:50 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 10:12 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
No no no. Reply To Author is a reply to the author (sender) of the
message, i.e. what you get currently with Ctrl-R, and what you'll still
get with Ctrl-R when it's not a
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 10:49 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 15:50 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 10:12 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
No no no. Reply To Author is a reply to the author (sender) of the
message, i.e. what you get currently
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 15:24 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 10:12 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
For some bizarre reason, the copy that came back to me through mailman
had stripped you from Cc. Yay for munging. :)
I think that's because Mailman removes
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 16:18 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 10:49 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 15:50 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 10:12 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
No no no. Reply To Author is a reply to the
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 16:18 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
So how would you get Reply to Author if it _is_ a list message?
Message-Reply To Author
That's a *really* bad idea. The standard reply button and Ctrl-R should
give a *private* reply. Changing that to suddenly send *public*
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 18:06 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 16:01 -0600, Bart wrote:
How about a little piece of code that looks at the message and, if
it's going to a list, nags you if you've top posted? /humor
It's tempting ... :-)
poc
bg:
Top-posting is how
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 11:44 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
I would prefer David's counter-proposal (see parallel thread or the BZ
page) in which Reply To List has the effect of Reply To All when list
headers are not detected (currently it does nothing so there's nothing
to lose).
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 10:14 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Note: this is a comment on Evo itself, rather than the Evo list.
As someone who posts quite a lot on this list, I'm forever having to
deal with people replying to my personal address rather than the list
address. Of course they
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 12:01 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
When the message being replied to is *not* a list message (i.e. the
List-* headers -- specifically List-Post -- are not present), then
everything works as now, except that Reply To List (Ctrl-L) has the same
effect as Reply To All
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 17:48 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 12:01 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
When the message being replied to is *not* a list message (i.e. the
List-* headers -- specifically List-Post -- are not present), then
everything works as now, except that
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 13:03 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
But if you want a key-combo which does this reply to all or list
thing, then I suspect you'd do better to use Ctrl-Shift-R and the patch
in https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624204#c8 for that.
That's different.
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 18:06 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 16:01 -0600, Bart wrote:
How about a little piece of code that looks at the message and, if
it's going to a list, nags you if you've top posted? /humor
It's tempting ... :-)
(: ˙˙˙uʍop-ǝpısdn ʇxǝʇ ɹıǝɥʇ
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 20:35, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote:
snip
OK, that's more complex then... because in the general case it's not
really OK to turn *either* of the existing 'Reply' or 'Reply to All'
buttons into a 'Reply to List' button. They're both used.
You could add a
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
