On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 06:11 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> After all it's a dev list, and assumes more knowledge than the user m-l so
> asking people to use a client with Reply-To-List, iff they want to
> participate, isn't a big deal imo.
I agree 100%. The only list I would even consider using reply
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Steve Long wrote:
>> But seriously.. why don't you guys switch off reply-to munging, already?!
>> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_120444.xml
>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~wolf31o2/xml/reply-to.xml for those of you that
> care.
>
Thank you.
"Some of the most popula
Jason Wever wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Reply-to-All is evil. You should be using Reply-to-List. I know that I
sure don't need to get the same email both on and off-list. Off-list
emails should be reserved only for when you ex
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrea Barisani wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:52:33PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>Something has changed recently. I'm no longer getting both.
>>
>>If I go back to a post from April 2 and hit reply all, I get @gentoo.org
>>and @robin.gentoo.or
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:52:33PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Andrea Barisani wrote:
> | There's no reference to @gentoo.org and our main MX server is
> rewriting @gentoo.org
> | to @lists.gentoo.org every time. Are you seeing @gentoo.org in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrea Barisani wrote:
| There's no reference to @gentoo.org and our main MX server is
rewriting @gentoo.org
| to @lists.gentoo.org every time. Are you seeing @gentoo.org in those
headers
| in the messages you are getting?
Something has changed recently
On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 09:20 +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> Actually, some mailing list managers actually are intelligent enough to
> not forward on an email if you're CC'ed. (Mailman comes to mind) I
> agree, having messages sent in duplicate can be annoying, but its not
> that hard to read one
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:32:59AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
> Reply to List hasn't even worked properly for me since switching to the
> new server or whatever. It duplicates to @gentoo.org and
> @lists.gentoo.org. I'd guess this has something to do with people
> sending to @gentoo.org when
maillog: 14/04/2005-14:10:34(-0600): Jason Wever types
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
> > Reply-to-All is evil. You should be using Reply-to-List. I know that I
> > sure don't need to get the same email both on and off-list. Off-list
> > emails should be reserved only for when
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 00:15 +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
At the moment, I'm used to just clicking the Reply button to send to the
list... however, on most lists that I participate in, Reply-To is left
alone, so I'm normally in the habit of clicking Reply-To-All. Seeing as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Reply-to-All is evil. You should be using Reply-to-List. I know that I
sure don't need to get the same email both on and off-list. Off-list
emails should be reserved only for when you explicitly do not wan
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 20:11 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Thursday 14 April 2005 18:32, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Reply to List hasn't even worked properly for me since switching to the
> > new server or whatever. It duplicates to @gentoo.org and
> > @lists.gentoo.org. I'd guess this has somet
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 16:42 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Try that on any of the technical lists (any of the kernel or debian
> lists, for example) and you'll get screamed at -- there you're expected
> to send to the poster and Cc: the list. But then, those lists don't
> require subscriptions to
On Thursday 14 April 2005 18:32, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Reply to List hasn't even worked properly for me since switching to the
> new server or whatever. It duplicates to @gentoo.org and
> @lists.gentoo.org. I'd guess this has something to do with people
> sending to @gentoo.org when the list thi
At 2005-04-14T09:32:59-0700, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Reply to List hasn't even worked properly for me since switching to
> the new server or whatever. It duplicates to @gentoo.org and
> @lists.gentoo.org. I'd guess this has something to do with people
> sending to @gentoo.org w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 00:15 +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
>
>>At the moment, I'm used to just clicking the Reply button to send to the
>>list... however, on most lists that I participate in, Reply-To is left
>>alone, so I'm n
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:23:19 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Reply-to-All is evil. You should be using Reply-to-List. I know that
| I sure don't need to get the same email both on and off-list.
| Off-list emails should be reserved only for when you explicitly do not
| want to
On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 00:15 +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> At the moment, I'm used to just clicking the Reply button to send to the
> list... however, on most lists that I participate in, Reply-To is left
> alone, so I'm normally in the habit of clicking Reply-To-All. Seeing as
> I normally have
Ming Zhao wrote:
Heh, well put ;-) Couldn't have said it better myself. :-P
*getting back ontopic*
At the moment, I'm used to just clicking the Reply button to send to the
list... however, on most lists that I participate in, Reply-To is left
alone, so I'm normally in the habit of clicking Reply-T
--
Ming Zhao.
E-mail: ming at gentoo dot org
key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x92914A48
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:11:10 +0200 Andrea Barisani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Starting a poll on *forums* about a *ml*, no thanks :). Hope you were
| being sarcastic. I'm open to suggestions other than the "remove the
| header and let the flames come" option which unfortunately looks like
| the o
Andrea Barisani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Starting a poll on *forums* about a *ml*, no thanks :). Hope you were being
> sarcastic. I'm open to suggestions other than the "remove the header and let
> the
> flames come" option which unfortunately looks like the only one to me and
> despite bein
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 11:11 +0200, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:06:18PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> > maillog: 14/04/2005-11:01:19(+0200): Andrea Barisani types
> > > I'm prefectly happy with removing our reply-to header (and leaving
> > > user_defined one if any) if the
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 18:06 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 14/04/2005-11:01:19(+0200): Andrea Barisani types
> > I'm prefectly happy with removing our reply-to header (and leaving
> > user_defined one if any) if the userbase of this ml is happy to deal without
> > it.
>
> Are you gonna s
On Thursday 14 April 2005 11:01, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:54:35AM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It appears that recently the mailing list server has enabled reply to
> > munging. From previous discussions (about 2 years ago) it was decided
> > not to do
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:06:18PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 14/04/2005-11:01:19(+0200): Andrea Barisani types
> > I'm prefectly happy with removing our reply-to header (and leaving
> > user_defined one if any) if the userbase of this ml is happy to deal without
> > it.
>
> Are you
maillog: 14/04/2005-11:01:19(+0200): Andrea Barisani types
> I'm prefectly happy with removing our reply-to header (and leaving
> user_defined one if any) if the userbase of this ml is happy to deal without
> it.
Are you gonna start a poll on the forums?
--
() Georgi Georgiev () If it has sy
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:54:35AM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> It appears that recently the mailing list server has enabled reply to
> munging. From previous discussions (about 2 years ago) it was decided not
> to do this reply to munging. What I want to ask is do we want to
>
Hi all,
It appears that recently the mailing list server has enabled reply to
munging. From previous discussions (about 2 years ago) it was decided not
to do this reply to munging. What I want to ask is do we want to
reconsider this decision, or do we want the reply-to munging be disabled
aga
29 matches
Mail list logo
