Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[Bob La Quey]

On Dec 5, 2007 6:16 PM, James G. Sack (jim) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James G. Sack (jim) wrote:
> >..
> > The argument stuff if merely the entertainment. :-)
>
> I hasten to add that I'm just speaking for myself!
>
> ..j

_NOT TRUE_ you are speaking for me as well.

You just diod not know it ;)

BobLQ


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[David Brown]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 06:12:12PM -0800, James G. Sack (jim) wrote:


Dave, a lot of email can be read in different ways. Sometimes here, the
tone may be blunt, perhaps even sounding offensive if you're not used to
having "accepted wisdom" challenged.

It is my observation that personal attacks and outright meanness are
quite quickly and strongly discouraged, but no one goes out of their way
to avoid disagreement.


Actually, I find that aspect of this list to be refreshing.

Dave


--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[James G. Sack (jim)]

James G. Sack (jim) wrote:
>..
> The argument stuff if merely the entertainment. :-)

I hasten to add that I'm just speaking for myself!

..j


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[James G. Sack (jim)]

David Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 05:07:48PM -0800, SJS wrote:
> 
>> No, and I won't. You floated a big number as an example of "not
>> wheel-spinning", and alone, that isn't sufficient. Or even a good
>> indicator, much less a refutation of wheel-spinning.
> 
> Why is it any better than giving a different meaningless number out of a
> bug tracking system.  Without looking at the bugs you can't tell how
> significant they are, so it doesn't tell you anything either.
> 
> I'm not going to post a changelog for the last four years of the linux
> kernel development.  It would be kind of silly, especially since it is all
> readily available.
> 
> But, to be quite honest, calling the work of current linux kernel
> developers wheel-spinning is rather insulting.
> 
> I joined this list rather recently, and am trying to get an idea of what
> kind of group it is.  So far, all I've really learned is that it doesn't
> really have kernel developers on it, and the postings almost seem hostile
> to kernel developers.  I'm not sure I really would want to go to a regular
> KPLUG meeting, or even continue on the mailing list.

Dave, a lot of email can be read in different ways. Sometimes here, the
tone may be blunt, perhaps even sounding offensive if you're not used to
having "accepted wisdom" challenged.

It is my observation that personal attacks and outright meanness are
quite quickly and strongly discouraged, but no one goes out of their way
to avoid disagreement.

There's nothing wrong with you disagreeing with someone else, but I
think part of this thread has been trying to make the point that you
haven't made any convincing argument for _your_ view nor made any
substantive critique of opposing arguments. The attack on your argument
is not an attack on you (or kernel programmers, or ...).

We don't always sit around disagreeing, sometimes there are remarkable
efforts to solve problems and brainstorm ideas. In _my_ opinion that's
the gold in this list.

The argument stuff if merely the entertainment. :-)

Regards,
..jim


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[Andrew Lentvorski]

David Brown wrote:

On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 05:07:48PM -0800, SJS wrote:


No, and I won't. You floated a big number as an example of "not
wheel-spinning", and alone, that isn't sufficient. Or even a good
indicator, much less a refutation of wheel-spinning.


Why is it any better than giving a different meaningless number out of a
bug tracking system.  Without looking at the bugs you can't tell how
significant they are, so it doesn't tell you anything either.


Actually, it does.  Since there is no incentive to game the bug system, 
the data on closure rates, importance, activity, etc. is a useful measure.



But, to be quite honest, calling the work of current linux kernel
developers wheel-spinning is rather insulting.


Well, what would you call the whole VM fiasco?  NFSv3 "locking"? 
Arguing against ZFS because it "telescopes" multiple layers 
(translation--our OS functions aren't well encapsulated so we'll shoot 
the messenger)?


Has the Linux kernel measurably improved since 2.4?  2.6.1?  2.6.9? 
*Can* you measure how much it has improved?


From my point of view, it regressed quite a bit from the 2.6.4 
timeframe because something started mangling the FS drivers. 
Unfortunately, only XFS had a good enough compliance suite to squawk. 
After about 10 versions, FS stuff seems to have been patched enough to 
make things roughly work on x86.  However, the other ports of XFS were 
still pretty broken and nobody really knows why.  Other FS systems may 
be equally broken; they just don't have compliance suites so we don't know.



I joined this list rather recently, and am trying to get an idea of what
kind of group it is.  So far, all I've really learned is that it doesn't
really have kernel developers on it, and the postings almost seem hostile
to kernel developers.  I'm not sure I really would want to go to a regular
KPLUG meeting, or even continue on the mailing list.


Well, this is a Linux list.  That includes users as well as developers. 
 Users always outnumber developers by at least an order of magnitude.


Hostile to kernel developers?   Not really.  I tend to follow what the 
Solaris, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and even OS X developers say without too much 
hostility (even with Theo de Raadt being an absolute flaming asshole).


Hostile to *Linux* kernel developers?  I might fall into that category. 
 This has been increasingly so over the last couple of years.


For some reason, Linux kernel development is developing an infallibility 
complex.  "We're right, you're wrong.  Our way or the highway."


Unfortunately, they're *not* always right.  2.6.X is littered with "not 
right".  And it doesn't look like it's converging much.  There is a 
reason a *lot* of businesses are not moving up from 2.4.X kernels.


Combine an increasingly complex piece of software with an infallibility 
complex and you are bound to produce hostility.


However, in the interest of fairness, I'm biased.  I'm one of those 
silly FreeBSD users.  I started using FreeBSD several years ago because 
of a building sense of unease about Linux.  The intervening years 
haven't made me regret that decision.


-a


--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[David Brown]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 05:07:48PM -0800, SJS wrote:


No, and I won't. You floated a big number as an example of "not
wheel-spinning", and alone, that isn't sufficient. Or even a good
indicator, much less a refutation of wheel-spinning.


Why is it any better than giving a different meaningless number out of a
bug tracking system.  Without looking at the bugs you can't tell how
significant they are, so it doesn't tell you anything either.

I'm not going to post a changelog for the last four years of the linux
kernel development.  It would be kind of silly, especially since it is all
readily available.

But, to be quite honest, calling the work of current linux kernel
developers wheel-spinning is rather insulting.

I joined this list rather recently, and am trying to get an idea of what
kind of group it is.  So far, all I've really learned is that it doesn't
really have kernel developers on it, and the postings almost seem hostile
to kernel developers.  I'm not sure I really would want to go to a regular
KPLUG meeting, or even continue on the mailing list.

Dave


--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[SJS]

begin  quoting David Brown as of Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 04:43:20PM -0800:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 02:05:13AM -0800, SJS wrote:
> 
> >3.6 million lines of code without much to show for it is a pretty good
> >example of wheel-spinning; it would be better if those 3.6 million lines
> >of code fixed 300,000 bugs, say.
> 
> I'm not sure what to say.  Have you read any of the kernel changelogs?
> These aren't 3.6 million lines of whitespace changes.  Just because they
> haven't checked bugs off in a bug-tracker doesn't mean they don't fix them.

No, and I won't. You floated a big number as an example of "not
wheel-spinning", and alone, that isn't sufficient. Or even a good
indicator, much less a refutation of wheel-spinning.

It's not my job as a reader to shore up your arguments for you.

> I find this amusing, since I have attended several sessions where the linux
> kernel development model was used as an example of how distributed
> development can work well.

"Attending sessions" is also a non-compelling argument.

Quite the opposite in fact. It's so weak so as to be an argument against.

(Not that I'm not arguing that the linux development model works or
doesn't work -- I'm just reacting poorly to the refutation of wheel
spinning, and now, the idea that lots of people saying something would
somehow make it true.)

> It's not to say that a bug tracking system
> couldn't help, but there aren't any that fit the kernel development model.

Andrew nailed it, I think -- the lieutenants keep track of their bugs,
and Linus is only dealing with debugged code integration.  The bug
tracking is still there, it's just hidden under one layer of management.

> Trying to force it into a very different model wouldn't solve any problems,
> it would just make things worse, probably much worse.

Yah, everyone would see the huge bug list, and go away. :-P

-- 
The Emperor Has No Clothes.
Stewart Stremler


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[David Brown]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 02:05:13AM -0800, SJS wrote:


3.6 million lines of code without much to show for it is a pretty good
example of wheel-spinning; it would be better if those 3.6 million lines
of code fixed 300,000 bugs, say.


I'm not sure what to say.  Have you read any of the kernel changelogs?
These aren't 3.6 million lines of whitespace changes.  Just because they
haven't checked bugs off in a bug-tracker doesn't mean they don't fix them.

I find this amusing, since I have attended several sessions where the linux
kernel development model was used as an example of how distributed
development can work well.  It's not to say that a bug tracking system
couldn't help, but there aren't any that fit the kernel development model.
Trying to force it into a very different model wouldn't solve any problems,
it would just make things worse, probably much worse.

Dave


--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[SJS]

begin  quoting David Brown as of Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:22:23PM -0800:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:47:49PM -0800, Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
> 
> >First, the Linux kernel has been doing more than little bit of wheel
> >spinning in the 2.6.X series.  An actual tracking system along with a
> >testing methodology would prevent quite a bit of that.
> 
> Very odd comments.  There is a rediculous amount of work being done on the

s/red/rid/

> 2.6.x kernels, and not just minor stuff.  It's a kernel, though, lots of
> stuff isn't visible, it just gets better, or supports more things.
> 
> Let's see:
> 
>   % git diff --stat v2.6.12..v2.6.23.9 | tail -1
>21938 files changed, 3644256 insertions(+), 1854755 deletions(-)
> 
> I'm not sure I'd call 3.6 million lines of code to be wheel spinning.

Um...

Wheel spinning is a lot of effort and not much progress.

3.6 million lines of code without much to show for it is a pretty good
example of wheel-spinning; it would be better if those 3.6 million lines
of code fixed 300,000 bugs, say.

Doing so much in the kernel does serious violence to my personal
aesthetic of code.

> They also have a fairly effective testing methodology--although a bit
> unusual.  Send patches and let thousands of people try them.
 
By that metric, so does Microsoft. And we tend to criticize 'em for it.

> I think the kernel is an outstanding example of how, at least in the right
> circumstances, a very non-traditional development model can work quite
> well.  It has it's disadvantages, especially if what someone ones doesn't
> fit the kernel developers priorities.

It's not how well or poorly the bear dances...

-- 
How many of the other projects set up like the kernel have succeeded?
Stewart Stremler


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[David Brown]

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:47:49PM -0800, Andrew Lentvorski wrote:


First, the Linux kernel has been doing more than little bit of wheel
spinning in the 2.6.X series.  An actual tracking system along with a
testing methodology would prevent quite a bit of that.


Very odd comments.  There is a rediculous amount of work being done on the
2.6.x kernels, and not just minor stuff.  It's a kernel, though, lots of
stuff isn't visible, it just gets better, or supports more things.

Let's see:

  % git diff --stat v2.6.12..v2.6.23.9 | tail -1
   21938 files changed, 3644256 insertions(+), 1854755 deletions(-)

I'm not sure I'd call 3.6 million lines of code to be wheel spinning.

They also have a fairly effective testing methodology--although a bit
unusual.  Send patches and let thousands of people try them.

I think the kernel is an outstanding example of how, at least in the right
circumstances, a very non-traditional development model can work quite
well.  It has it's disadvantages, especially if what someone ones doesn't
fit the kernel developers priorities.

Dave


--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[Andrew Lentvorski]

David Brown wrote:
> Nonsense (just keeping the spirit of the discussion up).  You are assuming
> one particular development model.  Whether a particular tool helps a
> development model is a decision the maintainers of that project need to
> use.  Issue tracking makes the same kinds of assumptions that most revision
> control systems make, of a centralized development model.  Something like
> linux kernel development, with a very different model.
> 
> If your attitude is like Linus, he doesn't want to see bug reports, he
> wants patches, the tracking system would just be filled with noise.

Linus isn't a particularly good example.  Linus is becoming more of an
example of what *not* to do when running a project as time goes by.

First, the Linux kernel has been doing more than little bit of wheel
spinning in the 2.6.X series.  An actual tracking system along with a
testing methodology would prevent quite a bit of that.

Second, Linus *does* have a tracking system--his lieutenants.  Just
because his tracking system isn't named "Trac", "Bugzilla", etc. doesn't
mean it doesn't exist.

And, by the way, several of his lieutenants *do* use those kinds of
methods to track their issues.

> However, I agree that issue tracking systems are indeed quite useful, when
> used properly.  I have just seen too many times where bugs just vanish into
> them to declare that they should always be used.

An issue tracking system has nothing to do with ignoring bugs.  That
happens with or without such a system, and I find that it happens more
often *without* such a system than with.

-a


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[David Brown]

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 03:05:09PM -0800, Andrew Lentvorski wrote:

David Brown wrote:


Setting up an issue tracking system is overkill for many projects.


Wrong.  Just dead wrong.

If it's worth publishing a repository, it's worth setting up an issue 
tracking system.


Nonsense (just keeping the spirit of the discussion up).  You are assuming
one particular development model.  Whether a particular tool helps a
development model is a decision the maintainers of that project need to
use.  Issue tracking makes the same kinds of assumptions that most revision
control systems make, of a centralized development model.  Something like
linux kernel development, with a very different model.

If your attitude is like Linus, he doesn't want to see bug reports, he
wants patches, the tracking system would just be filled with noise.

This si even *more* true if the project only has one person who works on it 
intermittently.  That tracking system becomes a refresher list when that 
person gets back to it.


That depends on that developer.  I personally would find bugs being hidden
off in some database much more difficult to find than email messages
describing the problems, or even that just end up in a text file called
BUGS at the top of the code tree.

However, I agree that issue tracking systems are indeed quite useful, when
used properly.  I have just seen too many times where bugs just vanish into
them to declare that they should always be used.

Dave


--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[Andrew Lentvorski]

David Brown wrote:


Setting up an issue tracking system is overkill for many projects.


Wrong.  Just dead wrong.

If it's worth publishing a repository, it's worth setting up an issue 
tracking system.


This si even *more* true if the project only has one person who works on 
it intermittently.  That tracking system becomes a refresher list when 
that person gets back to it.


-a


--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[SJS]

begin  quoting John H. Robinson, IV as of Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 02:18:53PM -0800:
> Stewart Stremler wrote:
> > begin  quoting John H. Robinson, IV as of Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:46:02AM 
> > -0800:
> > 
> > > Stewart, how many valid reasons (as in In Use In The Real World As Of
> > > Today) do I need to provide to you in order to show that not being
> > > subscribed (as defined as the email address the From: is not in the
> > > email lists distribution) but able to post is valid?
> > 
> > A person is subscribed to a list if they read the list traffic at one
> > of their email addresses.
> 
> Fair definition.
 
Don't know if it helps you with your 'how many valid reasons' question.
:)

> > > I am not subscribed to this list. Not at [EMAIL PROTECTED] anyway.
> > 
> > You read your response on the list. You have multiple submission
> > addresses, but the responses to your post you read on the list.
> 
> Not for kplug-list, but there are other lists (debian-devel) that some
> people post to, but are not at all subscribed. They read the list on the
> web archive.
>
> I have no idea why, but they do and it works for them. 

Well, at least they don't expect off-list replies...

-- 
It's not that all lists must munge, only that it's wrong to demand not to munge.
Stewart Stremler


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[John H. Robinson, IV]

Stewart Stremler wrote:
> begin  quoting John H. Robinson, IV as of Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:46:02AM 
> -0800:
> 
> > Stewart, how many valid reasons (as in In Use In The Real World As Of
> > Today) do I need to provide to you in order to show that not being
> > subscribed (as defined as the email address the From: is not in the
> > email lists distribution) but able to post is valid?
> 
> A person is subscribed to a list if they read the list traffic at one
> of their email addresses.

Fair definition.

> > I am not subscribed to this list. Not at [EMAIL PROTECTED] anyway.
> 
> You read your response on the list. You have multiple submission
> addresses, but the responses to your post you read on the list.

Not for kplug-list, but there are other lists (debian-devel) that some
people post to, but are not at all subscribed. They read the list on the
web archive.

I have no idea why, but they do and it works for them. 

-john


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[David Brown]

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:06:41AM -0800, Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade wrote:

Honestly, it's far better, for this particular case, to use an issue 
tracking system that is capable of ingesting email messages directly, 
rather than a normal mailing list.  Life is much better, especially if you 
pick a good system.


This is not how lkml works, not even close.  Many things aren't worth of
bugs, and the whole setup just doesn't map to any existing bug tracking
system.  Some subsystems might use bug trackers and have their own lists,
but it certainly isn't universally useful.

Setting up an issue tracking system is overkill for many projects.

Dave


--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[SJS]

begin  quoting John H. Robinson, IV as of Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:46:02AM -0800:
> Stewart Stremler wrote:
> > 
> > Let the bug-tracking system send the email to a list.
> 
> Then, since the bug-tracking system is subscribed to the list, all
> messages get entered into the tracking system.

A poorly set up bug tracking system is  poor defense.

> (yes, yes, yes. The tracking systems email address could be white
> listed).
 
Um, sure.

> Stewart, how many valid reasons (as in In Use In The Real World As Of
> Today) do I need to provide to you in order to show that not being
> subscribed (as defined as the email address the From: is not in the
> email lists distribution) but able to post is valid?
>
> If you are unhappy with my definition of subscribed, please feel free to
> modify. And give me a number of valid reasons.

A person is subscribed to a list if they read the list traffic at one
of their email addresses.

> I am not subscribed to this list. Not at [EMAIL PROTECTED] anyway.

You read your response on the list. You have multiple submission
addresses, but the responses to your post you read on the list.

-- 
Not sure where you're trying to go with this.
Stewart Stremler


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[Neil Schneider]

Brad Beyenhof wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2007 11:49 PM, David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think that is one of the complains of people using 'reply-all' on lists,
>> since many mail systems don't eliminate the duplicates.  Most of them only
>> elimiate the duplicate if it is delivered by the same sender, which won't
>> be the case with a mailing list.
>
> You know, you can set Mailman to not send you a duplicate email if
> you're already in 'To:' or 'Cc:'... there are a lot of settings in the
> Web interface that are often ignored but might help those with
> particular preferences to get what they want... for instance, I forgo
> the "password reminder" emails on every list to which I subscribe.

Yes, I think that is one of the advantages of Mailman, you can manage your own
subscription and set your own options without any involvement of the admins.

-- 
Neil Schneider  pacneil_at_linuxgeek_dot_net
   http://www.paccomp.com
Key fingerprint = 67F0 E493 FCC0 0A8C 769B  8209 32D7 1DB1 8460 C47D

I help busy professionals diversify their self-directed IRAs and portfolios
with real estate they don't have to manage.  Please let me know if you or
someone you know would like more information.


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[John H. Robinson, IV]

Stewart Stremler wrote:
> 
> Let the bug-tracking system send the email to a list.

Then, since the bug-tracking system is subscribed to the list, all
messages get entered into the tracking system.

(yes, yes, yes. The tracking systems email address could be white
listed).

Stewart, how many valid reasons (as in In Use In The Real World As Of
Today) do I need to provide to you in order to show that not being
subscribed (as defined as the email address the From: is not in the
email lists distribution) but able to post is valid?

If you are unhappy with my definition of subscribed, please feel free to
modify. And give me a number of valid reasons.

-john

I am not subscribed to this list. Not at [EMAIL PROTECTED] anyway.


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[SJS]

begin  quoting Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade as of Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:06:41AM -0800:
> On Dec 4, 2007, at 8:03 AM, David Brown wrote:
> 
> >Goodness, what about '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' to report bugs.  The  
> >developers will be on the list and certainly want bug reports, but
> >people posting bugs don't want to be reading the list.
> 
> Honestly, it's far better, for this particular case, to use an issue  
> tracking system that is capable of ingesting email messages directly,  
> rather than a normal mailing list.  Life is much better, especially  
> if you pick a good system.

Let the bug-tracking system send the email to a list.

> We're currently using a help-desk package (Cerberus) for primary  
> interaction with our "clients", and Bugzilla for actual defect/bug  
> tracking.  Right now cross-referencing is done manually (usually by  
> dropping URLs in messages where/when needed) but everyone works much  
> more efficiently than if we were to do it all with one or more  
> mailing lists.

Nifty!

-- 
It's been a long time since I've run a Bugzilla instance.
Stewart Stremler


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[SJS]

begin  quoting Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade as of Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:00:38AM -0800:
> On Dec 4, 2007, at 12:39 AM, SJS wrote:
> 
> >I loathe the Reply-All. I think we should forbid more than one target
> >email address, and dispense with CC: entirely -- mostly because what
> >mostly happens is that someone uses a "mailing list" in their mail
> >client and sends 500 people some chain letter.
> 
> Then what about cases when YOU wan to send a message to three other  
> people, but don't care to set up a mailing list for it?  You know,  
> like you just did yesterday. :)

Oh, I like Bcc just fine.

-- 
Are you sure I was the one who sent that email?
Stewart Stremler


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade]

On Dec 4, 2007, at 8:03 AM, David Brown wrote:

Goodness, what about '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' to report bugs.  The  
developers
will be on the list and certainly want bug reports, but people  
posting bugs

don't want to be reading the list.



Honestly, it's far better, for this particular case, to use an issue  
tracking system that is capable of ingesting email messages directly,  
rather than a normal mailing list.  Life is much better, especially  
if you pick a good system.


We're currently using a help-desk package (Cerberus) for primary  
interaction with our "clients", and Bugzilla for actual defect/bug  
tracking.  Right now cross-referencing is done manually (usually by  
dropping URLs in messages where/when needed) but everyone works much  
more efficiently than if we were to do it all with one or more  
mailing lists.


Gregory

--
Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP Key ID: EAF4844B  keyserver: pgpkeys.mit.edu



--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade]

On Dec 4, 2007, at 12:39 AM, SJS wrote:


I loathe the Reply-All. I think we should forbid more than one target
email address, and dispense with CC: entirely -- mostly because what
mostly happens is that someone uses a "mailing list" in their mail
client and sends 500 people some chain letter.



Then what about cases when YOU wan to send a message to three other  
people, but don't care to set up a mailing list for it?  You know,  
like you just did yesterday. :)


Gregory

--
Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP Key ID: EAF4844B  keyserver: pgpkeys.mit.edu



--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade]

On Dec 3, 2007, at 10:43 PM, Neil Schneider wrote:


The mailing list didn't take any choice away, I simply had to
be smarter than the email.



WHAT??!!?!?!?

You mean, we have to THINK?

:D

Just doing my part to flog this dead horse.

Gregory

--
Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP Key ID: EAF4844B  keyserver: pgpkeys.mit.edu



--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[David Brown]

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 12:39:02AM -0800, SJS wrote:


I don't see why a mailing list would /allow/ posts from non-subscribers,
really. Where's the benefit?  If you ain't gonna listen, why are you
talking?


Goodness, what about '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' to report bugs.  The developers
will be on the list and certainly want bug reports, but people posting bugs
don't want to be reading the list.  Or say the Linux Kernel Mailing List,
which gets tens of thousands of messages a month.  It overwhelms most
people's mail reading capabilities, so they generally "read" it by looking
at archives or even summaries.  But, they still need to be able to post
issues to it.

The thing is, there are various different kinds of mailing lists, some of
which would be quite harmed by reply-to munging.  The rest are just a
matter of which people you want to annoy.

Dave


--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[Brad Beyenhof]

On Dec 3, 2007 11:49 PM, David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that is one of the complains of people using 'reply-all' on lists,
> since many mail systems don't eliminate the duplicates.  Most of them only
> elimiate the duplicate if it is delivered by the same sender, which won't
> be the case with a mailing list.

You know, you can set Mailman to not send you a duplicate email if
you're already in 'To:' or 'Cc:'... there are a lot of settings in the
Web interface that are often ignored but might help those with
particular preferences to get what they want... for instance, I forgo
the "password reminder" emails on every list to which I subscribe.

-- 
Brad Beyenhof
http://augmentedfourth.com
Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also
deprive me of the possibility of being right.
~ Igor Stravinsky


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[SJS]

begin  quoting James G. Sack (jim) as of Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 11:59:16PM -0800:
[snip]
> Well now, I can argue two sides as well as some, ;-)

Heh. A useful talent.

> so I have to say I _can_ actually appreciate the gripe about reply-to
> (at least the way it affects my thunderbird client).

That's good too.

> tbird provides
>   a "Reply" icon (with tooltip "reply to the message"), and
>   a "Reply All" icon (tooltip "reply to sender and all recipients")
> along with corresponding Message menu entries (with hotkeys shown ^R,
> SHIFT+^R) and the, also on the rightclick  context menu slightly
> different wording "reply to sender only" and "reply to all", which I
> believe are still the same 2 operations.

I loathe the Reply-All. I think we should forbid more than one target
email address, and dispense with CC: entirely -- mostly because what
mostly happens is that someone uses a "mailing list" in their mail
client and sends 500 people some chain letter.  

Chances are, one of 'em has a computer that's part of a botnet, and
suddenly the level of spam making it through my filter jumps a level.
 
> When there is no reply-to, reply/reply-to-sender uses the "From:" header
>  (I think), but when there is a Reply-to, it uses the Reply-to.
 
I'm starting to like the idea of munging the From: line as well. Replace
it with "Registered Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>",
and let the user add a parameter to their registration: "forward on 
direct email" or "route direct email to list".

Of course, that will REALLY get the die hard anti-reply-to folks wound up...

> If there is no reply-to reply all includes the sender, if there is it
> includes the list instead of the sender (which it _could_ get from the
> "From:" header, right?)
> 
> OK, so the intended meaning of rfc2822 seems like it may be:
> instructions for the client to always use reply-to in place of
> from-address.



> ==> Thus the gripe that I can't (as easily) reply to the From-address
> when a reply-to has taken over.Furthermore it is not the original
> sender's intent to make himself harder to (er) reply to.
> 
> ==> This may be considerably *more important on lists that allow posts
> from non-subscribers*.

Yes.

I don't see why a mailing list would /allow/ posts from non-subscribers,
really. Where's the benefit?  If you ain't gonna listen, why are you
talking?

> ==> I can easily agree that the mail client (or it's user) is the part
> of the system that is broken.

Nah. It's the mailing-list software.

Couldn't the mailing list software keep track of what options you
wanted?  "I want unmunged reply-to and list-post headers please. No,
make that a munged reply-to and a list-post, thanks."

> * * * * *
> 
> The addition on another user option "Reply-to-List" does seem like it
> would be what I'm looking for. In fact I'd like to see
> 
>   Reply-to-all
>   Reply-to-list
>   Reply-to-sender (using From: even if there's a reply-to)
>   Reply (to my configured choice)

In a GUI client, make the a combo box with the other choices available.

For a CLI client, cycle thru the options.

> I do kinda think maybe lists should use something like a List-Post
> header, and then the Reply can go back to meaning a substitute for the
> From-address.
 
Inertia is against you.

(That doesn't mean give up the good fight...)

-- 
First, let's get rid of top-posted replies.
Stewart Stremler


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[David Brown]

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 12:00:25AM -0800, SJS wrote:


...except he didn't. Most mailing lists that I've seen munge the Reply-To.
I suspect this is because mailing lists that _don't_ have a hard time
keeping traffic up enough for the list to be useful, and thus they die.


Heh.  This is one of two lists that I'm on that munge reply-to.  The
numerous other lists aggressively defend not setting it.

Just a sampling of messages received on a few lists for October:

mono-devel628
git 3,382
lkml   12,394

Yes, that's over twelve thousands messages in a single month.

I've not heard many people complain about not getting enough mail :-)


Munging the reply-to says "we're a community here, deal".
Not munging the reply-to says "we've got serious business here, deal".


Seems to summarize which lists munge and which ones don't.  I'm just not on
very many lists that do.

Dave


--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[SJS]

begin  quoting David Brown as of Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 08:49:56PM -0800:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 07:23:43PM -0800, James G. Sack (jim) wrote:
[snip]
> >I thought the "this list" option made eminent sense, so why would they
> >use the  _strongly recommended_ language?
> >
> >Are there any downsides to this header setting?
> 
> Some have mentioned that it violates RFC-822, which is not quite true.  It
> voilates RFC-2822, the new document describing mail messages.
> 
>   
> 
> is a good summary.

To a point. The article says:

People still using these two documents to debate the issue are wasting
everybody's time. The issue was definitively settled in 2001, and Chip
won.

...except he didn't. Most mailing lists that I've seen munge the Reply-To.
I suspect this is because mailing lists that _don't_ have a hard time
keeping traffic up enough for the list to be useful, and thus they die.

However, this is personal experience, and I self-select for a certain
sort of list anyway. I have not taken a survey of all mailing lists,
and categoriezed them.  It's also exactly contrary to the author of
the above article's personal experience.

Maybe you folks whom google likes will have better luck.

> The main disadvantage to setting Reply-To is that it
> overwrites whatever the original poster might have used this field for.  If
> they don't use it, a modern client, such as mutt, will still allow a reply
> to go to either.  Many clients don't give a choice, and the only way to
> reply to the possible sender is to cut and paste the address.

...which is not difficult, mind you..

> You'll usually find a lot of strong opinions about it, usually boiling down
> to people either wanting to make the choice themselves, or not having to
> think about it.

The problem is that mailing lists approximate a newsgroup or a fidonet
topic [yikes! it's been to long! Did I remember that correctly?] -- for
some folks. Otherfolks don't see a mailing list the same way.

So it's a culture clash. Some people view a mailing list one way, and
they're Right By God And Death To The Infidels, and others view a mailing
list another way, and they, too, are Right By God And Burn The Heretics.

Personally, I don't _want_ the default to be reply-to-sender. Force
that on me, and my Reply-To will be set to /dev/null.  It's not like
my email address is being munged in the header as well (although that's
an interesting idea: what if the From: was replaced with a user-specific
string?).

> If you set a mailing list to munge Reply-To, you pretty much give up any
> complaint you might have about people posting to the list.  A reply may be
> off topic, and really should have just been sent to the original poster,
> but the list didn't give them that choice.

Yup. 

Munging the reply-to says "we're a community here, deal".

Not munging the reply-to says "we've got serious business here, deal".

-- 
RFC does not automatically mean "good idea". All stupid together is still dumb.
Stewart Stremler


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[James G. Sack (jim)]

Neil Schneider wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
> 
>> If you set a mailing list to munge Reply-To, you pretty much give up any
>> complaint you might have about people posting to the list.  A reply may be
>> off topic, and really should have just been sent to the original poster,
>> but the list didn't give them that choice.
> 
> Specious argument that's been beat to death on nearly every technical list on
> the internet. If you check the headers I sent this message to the list and to
> you privately. The mailing list didn't take any choice away, I simply had to
> be smarter than the email. Funny this discussion never comes up on my bicycle
> list, or my family list, or any number of other lists I subscribe to that are
> not computer technology related.
> 

Well now, I can argue two sides as well as some, ;-)
so I have to say I _can_ actually appreciate the gripe about reply-to
(at least the way it affects my thunderbird client).

tbird provides
  a "Reply" icon (with tooltip "reply to the message"), and
  a "Reply All" icon (tooltip "reply to sender and all recipients")
along with corresponding Message menu entries (with hotkeys shown ^R,
SHIFT+^R) and the, also on the rightclick  context menu slightly
different wording "reply to sender only" and "reply to all", which I
believe are still the same 2 operations.

When there is no reply-to, reply/reply-to-sender uses the "From:" header
 (I think), but when there is a Reply-to, it uses the Reply-to.

If there is no reply-to reply all includes the sender, if there is it
includes the list instead of the sender (which it _could_ get from the
"From:" header, right?)

OK, so the intended meaning of rfc2822 seems like it may be:
instructions for the client to always use reply-to in place of
from-address.

==> Thus the gripe that I can't (as easily) reply to the From-address
when a reply-to has taken over.Furthermore it is not the original
sender's intent to make himself harder to (er) reply to.

==> This may be considerably *more important on lists that allow posts
from non-subscribers*.

==> I can easily agree that the mail client (or it's user) is the part
of the system that is broken.

* * * * *

Now I thought I remembered seeing something like "reply to list"
mentioned somewhere, so I go looking and find a tbird extension
  http://alumnit.ca/wiki/index.php?page=ReplyToListThunderbirdExtension
but, it doesn't seem to work with 2.0.0.9. The webpage says something
about List-Post header, but it's not clear whether the extension
requires one of those to work. There are even words like wait 'till
tbird 3.0.

The addition on another user option "Reply-to-List" does seem like it
would be what I'm looking for. In fact I'd like to see

  Reply-to-all
  Reply-to-list
  Reply-to-sender (using From: even if there's a reply-to)
  Reply (to my configured choice)

I do kinda think maybe lists should use something like a List-Post
header, and then the Reply can go back to meaning a substitute for the
From-address.

Ahh, I see now that the link Dave gave is where I saw List-Post
mentioned. It even has an rfc:
  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2369.txt

oh gee, life is s complicated!

Regards,
..jim


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[David Brown]

On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 10:43:40PM -0800, Neil Schneider wrote:


David Brown wrote:


If you set a mailing list to munge Reply-To, you pretty much give up any
complaint you might have about people posting to the list.  A reply may be
off topic, and really should have just been sent to the original poster,
but the list didn't give them that choice.


Specious argument that's been beat to death on nearly every technical list on
the internet. If you check the headers I sent this message to the list and to
you privately. The mailing list didn't take any choice away, I simply had to
be smarter than the email. Funny this discussion never comes up on my bicycle
list, or my family list, or any number of other lists I subscribe to that are
not computer technology related.


BTW, unlike with my old configuration, I only saw a single copy of this
mail.  In fact, I just started noticing this very nice feature of the cyrus
imapd.  It keeps a 3-day database of message id's, and will avoid duplicate
delivery of messages in that timeframe.

I think that is one of the complains of people using 'reply-all' on lists,
since many mail systems don't eliminate the duplicates.  Most of them only
elimiate the duplicate if it is delivered by the same sender, which won't
be the case with a mailing list.

Dave


--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[David Brown]

On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 10:43:40PM -0800, Neil Schneider wrote:


David Brown wrote:


If you set a mailing list to munge Reply-To, you pretty much give up any
complaint you might have about people posting to the list.  A reply may be
off topic, and really should have just been sent to the original poster,
but the list didn't give them that choice.


Specious argument that's been beat to death on nearly every technical list on
the internet. If you check the headers I sent this message to the list and to
you privately. The mailing list didn't take any choice away, I simply had to
be smarter than the email. Funny this discussion never comes up on my bicycle
list, or my family list, or any number of other lists I subscribe to that are
not computer technology related.


Ahh, but you didn't send it to me privately.  You sent it to my from
address, which is a special address that I'm subscribed to this list as.  I
might have a Reply-To that I wanted people to use, but you would never know
that.

Funny though, I think this mailing list is the closest I've ever seen to
this thread being on topic.  BTW, it has come up on numerous non-technical
lists as well, usually after someone posts a private reply to the entire
list without realizing it.

Dave


--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[SJS]

begin  quoting John H. Robinson, IV as of Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 11:03:02PM -0800:
> James G. Sack (jim) wrote:
> > 
> > Yes I read that line, and can imagine arguing that the mail list _is_
> > the author of the re-distributed message (admittedly a stretch).
> 
> A mailing list is no more an author than is McGraw Hill publishing.

Note that if you wish to contact the author of a book published by
McGraw Hill, and the author hasn't put his contact information into
the text, you go through McGraw Hill.

Not munging reply-to makes sense for an announcement-based list,
the sort of thing that you'd use for publishing event notices, 
product releases, general announcements, invitations, etc.

In short, lists where "conversation" is not important, needed, or desired.

I suppose for very-high-traffic list with a lot of readers and only a
few posters (a developer's list, perhaps, and a lot of interested users
and hangers-on), it would also work okay.

Personally, when I (r)eply, I expect it to go to the list.  I get
suprised when this is not the case.

-- 
Utility trumps aesthetics.
Stewart Stremler


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[John H. Robinson, IV]

Neil Schneider wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
> 
> > If you set a mailing list to munge Reply-To, you pretty much give up any
> > complaint you might have about people posting to the list.  A reply may be
> > off topic, and really should have just been sent to the original poster,
> > but the list didn't give them that choice.
> 
> Specious argument that's been beat to death on nearly every technical list on
> the internet. If you check the headers I sent this message to the list and to
> you privately. The mailing list didn't take any choice away, I simply had to
> be smarter than the email.

This mail comes from [EMAIL PROTECTED], because that is what I am
subscribed as. I set the reply to to som other email address. Can you
tell me what that is? Can you now figure out why or why not the choice
David referrrend to is gone?

What about those times when a conversation really should be on a
different list, and the poster sets the Reply-To accordingly?

> Funny this discussion never comes up on my bicycle list, or my family
> list, or any number of other lists I subscribe to that are not
> computer technology related.

Funny how we don't discuss the relative merits of Shimano Total
Integration, or the results of Fido's last vet appointment.

-john


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[John H. Robinson, IV]

James G. Sack (jim) wrote:
> 
> Yes I read that line, and can imagine arguing that the mail list _is_
> the author of the re-distributed message (admittedly a stretch).

A mailing list is no more an author than is McGraw Hill publishing.

-john


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[Neil Schneider]

David Brown wrote:

> If you set a mailing list to munge Reply-To, you pretty much give up any
> complaint you might have about people posting to the list.  A reply may be
> off topic, and really should have just been sent to the original poster,
> but the list didn't give them that choice.

Specious argument that's been beat to death on nearly every technical list on
the internet. If you check the headers I sent this message to the list and to
you privately. The mailing list didn't take any choice away, I simply had to
be smarter than the email. Funny this discussion never comes up on my bicycle
list, or my family list, or any number of other lists I subscribe to that are
not computer technology related.

-- 
Neil Schneider  pacneil_at_linuxgeek_dot_net
   http://www.paccomp.com
Key fingerprint = 67F0 E493 FCC0 0A8C 769B  8209 32D7 1DB1 8460 C47D

I help busy professionals diversify their self-directed IRAs and portfolios
with real estate they don't have to manage.  Please let me know if you or
someone you know would like more information.


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[James G. Sack (jim)]

Chris Louden wrote:
> On 12/3/07, James G. Sack (jim) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Chris Louden wrote:
>>> We beat this to a pulp on the oclug mailing list just a few days ago.
>>>
>>> Basically it makes sense from any logical point of view for a mailing
>>> list. Specifically that most responses generally want to reply to the
>>> entire list so that an actual conversation can take place.
>>>
>>> However setting it to reply to list by default violates RFC 2822 apparently.
>>>
>>> Which is not to say your going to hell if you do. Just that you place
>>> the ease of allowing members of the mailing list to simply hit reply
>>> to communicate with the entire list over adhering to standards.
>>>
>>> Is it really an inconvenience to hit reply to all, no. However its not
>>> what we normally do to emails so it seem like an inconvenience.
>>>
>>> Also many modern mail clients are smart and have a "reply to list"
>>> option. This does not apply to those of us that use gmail sadly.
>>>
>>> The munging that takes place isn't really going to prevent all that
>>> much spam from coming your way eventually I see no reason to use reply
>>> to poster over list.
>>>
>>> Apparently the list moderator for OCLUG and at least one guy at UCI
>>> feel that reply to poster is the way to go. I am on numerous lug
>>> mailing lists and all of them except OCLUG use reply to mailing list.
>>> However this could be just in based on the fact that they are LUGs and
>>> not dev lists or etc.
>>>
>>> If you really want to understand the reasons why just wrap you brain
>>> around RFC 2822 which is just a google search away.
>>>
>>> ...Now I'm probably going to get reamed for top posting. Which RFC is that?
>>>
>> Thanks Chris (and I forgive you).
>>
>> You know, with only a quick look at rfc 2822. I would think there might
>> be an argument that the list _is_ the sender ("re-sender", maybe), and
>> that there is no inconsistency in having reply-to be back to the list.
>>
> 
> Here is the specific line.
> 
> RFC 2822.
> "When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to
> which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent."
> A mailing list is not the author, and it can not change the reply-to field
> without violating the email RFC.

Yes I read that line, and can imagine arguing that the mail list _is_
the author of the re-distributed message (admittedly a stretch).

You've probably seen Dave's posted reference to
  http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful
which I agree is a good doc, and Dave's summary seems pretty good.

..but, I would say there is room for improvement, in standard practice
and maybe in client-smarts.

Thanks again,
..jim


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[Chris Louden]

On 12/3/07, James G. Sack (jim) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Louden wrote:
> > We beat this to a pulp on the oclug mailing list just a few days ago.
> >
> > Basically it makes sense from any logical point of view for a mailing
> > list. Specifically that most responses generally want to reply to the
> > entire list so that an actual conversation can take place.
> >
> > However setting it to reply to list by default violates RFC 2822 apparently.
> >
> > Which is not to say your going to hell if you do. Just that you place
> > the ease of allowing members of the mailing list to simply hit reply
> > to communicate with the entire list over adhering to standards.
> >
> > Is it really an inconvenience to hit reply to all, no. However its not
> > what we normally do to emails so it seem like an inconvenience.
> >
> > Also many modern mail clients are smart and have a "reply to list"
> > option. This does not apply to those of us that use gmail sadly.
> >
> > The munging that takes place isn't really going to prevent all that
> > much spam from coming your way eventually I see no reason to use reply
> > to poster over list.
> >
> > Apparently the list moderator for OCLUG and at least one guy at UCI
> > feel that reply to poster is the way to go. I am on numerous lug
> > mailing lists and all of them except OCLUG use reply to mailing list.
> > However this could be just in based on the fact that they are LUGs and
> > not dev lists or etc.
> >
> > If you really want to understand the reasons why just wrap you brain
> > around RFC 2822 which is just a google search away.
> >
> > ...Now I'm probably going to get reamed for top posting. Which RFC is that?
> >
> Thanks Chris (and I forgive you).
>
> You know, with only a quick look at rfc 2822. I would think there might
> be an argument that the list _is_ the sender ("re-sender", maybe), and
> that there is no inconsistency in having reply-to be back to the list.
>

Here is the specific line.

RFC 2822.
"When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to
which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent."
A mailing list is not the author, and it can not change the reply-to field
without violating the email RFC.



> Different readers give different readings?
>
> Thanks again,
> ..jim ('course, maybe I read it too fast)
>
>
> --
> KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
> http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
>


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[David Brown]

On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 07:23:43PM -0800, James G. Sack (jim) wrote:

I'm trying to recommend this mailman setting for another list I'm on.

..but a question comes up: Mailman's docs contain some words to the effect:


Where are replies to list messages directed?
 Poster is strongly recommended for most mailing
 lists.


I believe we use mailman and all "our" lists have the reply-to option
set to "this list" -- is this not so?

I thought the "this list" option made eminent sense, so why would they
use the  _strongly recommended_ language?

Are there any downsides to this header setting?


Some have mentioned that it violates RFC-822, which is not quite true.  It
voilates RFC-2822, the new document describing mail messages.

  

is a good summary.  The main disadvantage to setting Reply-To is that it
overwrites whatever the original poster might have used this field for.  If
they don't use it, a modern client, such as mutt, will still allow a reply
to go to either.  Many clients don't give a choice, and the only way to
reply to the possible sender is to cut and paste the address.

You'll usually find a lot of strong opinions about it, usually boiling down
to people either wanting to make the choice themselves, or not having to
think about it.

If you set a mailing list to munge Reply-To, you pretty much give up any
complaint you might have about people posting to the list.  A reply may be
off topic, and really should have just been sent to the original poster,
but the list didn't give them that choice.

Dave


--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[James G. Sack (jim)]

Chris Louden wrote:
> We beat this to a pulp on the oclug mailing list just a few days ago.
> 
> Basically it makes sense from any logical point of view for a mailing
> list. Specifically that most responses generally want to reply to the
> entire list so that an actual conversation can take place.
> 
> However setting it to reply to list by default violates RFC 2822 apparently.
> 
> Which is not to say your going to hell if you do. Just that you place
> the ease of allowing members of the mailing list to simply hit reply
> to communicate with the entire list over adhering to standards.
> 
> Is it really an inconvenience to hit reply to all, no. However its not
> what we normally do to emails so it seem like an inconvenience.
> 
> Also many modern mail clients are smart and have a "reply to list"
> option. This does not apply to those of us that use gmail sadly.
> 
> The munging that takes place isn't really going to prevent all that
> much spam from coming your way eventually I see no reason to use reply
> to poster over list.
> 
> Apparently the list moderator for OCLUG and at least one guy at UCI
> feel that reply to poster is the way to go. I am on numerous lug
> mailing lists and all of them except OCLUG use reply to mailing list.
> However this could be just in based on the fact that they are LUGs and
> not dev lists or etc.
> 
> If you really want to understand the reasons why just wrap you brain
> around RFC 2822 which is just a google search away.
> 
> ...Now I'm probably going to get reamed for top posting. Which RFC is that?
>
Thanks Chris (and I forgive you).

You know, with only a quick look at rfc 2822. I would think there might
be an argument that the list _is_ the sender ("re-sender", maybe), and
that there is no inconsistency in having reply-to be back to the list.

Different readers give different readings?

Thanks again,
..jim ('course, maybe I read it too fast)


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Re: any downside to mailman reply-to="this list"

[Chris Louden]

We beat this to a pulp on the oclug mailing list just a few days ago.

Basically it makes sense from any logical point of view for a mailing
list. Specifically that most responses generally want to reply to the
entire list so that an actual conversation can take place.

However setting it to reply to list by default violates RFC 2822 apparently.

Which is not to say your going to hell if you do. Just that you place
the ease of allowing members of the mailing list to simply hit reply
to communicate with the entire list over adhering to standards.

Is it really an inconvenience to hit reply to all, no. However its not
what we normally do to emails so it seem like an inconvenience.

Also many modern mail clients are smart and have a "reply to list"
option. This does not apply to those of us that use gmail sadly.

The munging that takes place isn't really going to prevent all that
much spam from coming your way eventually I see no reason to use reply
to poster over list.

Apparently the list moderator for OCLUG and at least one guy at UCI
feel that reply to poster is the way to go. I am on numerous lug
mailing lists and all of them except OCLUG use reply to mailing list.
However this could be just in based on the fact that they are LUGs and
not dev lists or etc.

If you really want to understand the reasons why just wrap you brain
around RFC 2822 which is just a google search away.

...Now I'm probably going to get reamed for top posting. Which RFC is that?

Chris


On 12/3/07, James G. Sack (jim) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to recommend this mailman setting for another list I'm on.
>
> ..but a question comes up: Mailman's docs contain some words to the effect:
>
> >> Where are replies to list messages directed?
> >>  Poster is strongly recommended for most mailing
> >>  lists.
>
> I believe we use mailman and all "our" lists have the reply-to option
> set to "this list" -- is this not so?
>
> I thought the "this list" option made eminent sense, so why would they
> use the  _strongly recommended_ language?
>
> Are there any downsides to this header setting?
>
> Regards,
> ..jim
>
>
> --
> KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
> http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
>


-- 
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list