[sqlite] List duplication
On 2015-03-03 06:14 AM, Mike Owens wrote: > Okay, I blocked the sqlite-users at sqlite.org address in the to address > so if it is sent alone, it will be blocked. This is working perfectly, thanks!
[sqlite] List duplication
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 21:10 -0600, Mike Owens wrote: > The problem is that this is the very bone of contention in the reply-to > religious war. Religious as in there are strongly-held beliefs on both sides, but only one is really based in logic and common sense? :) > Is it not? I may be wrong, but I thought this is the very > setting that people get so defensive about changing. Yes, it's Reply-To: that people get defensive about changing, but... > As we have it now, > people have a suitable default pointing back to the (correct) list but also > the freedom to change the reply-to header should they want to. If we strip > the reply-to header in order to correct for the problematic MUA's, then the > latter freedom is lost. And if I remember correctly, some people get very > angry about this. ... that isn't really the point. People *do* talk about 'freedom', but it's the freedom to have their mail client actually do as they ask it. A mail client has a private 'Reply' button, and a public 'Reply All' button. Each has a clear and simple function. If the list abuses the Reply-To: field, that overrides the behaviour of the private Reply button, hijacking it to send a public reply to the list. So the recipients' freedom is taken away from them ? it's like breaking into their computer and hacking their mail client so that *both* buttons do the same thing ? occasionally leading to a *highly* embarrassing event when private emails are accidentally sent to the list. If the list *doesn't* abuse the Reply-To: field, then the mail client does the right thing. The private Reply, and the public Reply All buttons, both do precisely what they should. The main reason people advocate for munging Reply-To: is usually that "list members are too dim to press the right button". Which aside from being fairly insulting, is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy ? because for those who genuinely are that unsophisticated, by hacking their mail clients to behave inconsistently, you actually *reduce* their chances of understanding it all. The private/public reply button concept is *so* simple, that I'd suggest the *main* reason people have problems with it is because of misguided Reply-To: headers changing the behaviour and making it inconsistent. It should also be noted that the failure mode when you do the hack can sometimes be catastrophic, as public postings can never be undone. The failure mode if someone accidentally hits the wrong button, as well as being entirely their own fault, is very minor ? all they need to do is resend the message. And in the general case, if someone isn't *even* paying enough attention to press the right button, sometimes there is *benefit* in having their messages not reach the list until the coffee has kicked in and they're a little more awake. They can edit the message before they resend it :) There is little benefit in a Reply-To: header, and it is actually *counter-productive* in the long run for the one case where it has any dubious logic at all. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://david.woodhou.se/reply-to-list.html -- dwmw2
[sqlite] List duplication
On 2015-03-03 01:15 AM, Mike Owens wrote: > For clarity, here is the currently policy for Reply-to as it is set in > Mailman: > > > - Should any existing Reply-To: header found in the original message be > stripped? If so, this will be done regardless of whether an explict > Reply-To: header is added by Mailman or not. : *NO* > - Where are replies to list messages directed? *This list* > - Explicit Reply-To: header : *None* Ah, thank you, all makes sense now. If you change the first option to YES then nobody else's quirky reply-to headers will get into the list, and the second option remains as is (it should be setting the standard @mailinglists reply-to field) - this should solve the duplication issue, but if it is disagreeable to anyone, more consideration is needed. Thanks again Mike for the list maintenance and the quick replies! Ryan > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:04 PM, R.Smith wrote: > >> >> On 2015-03-03 12:42 AM, Darren Duncan wrote: >> >>> I think that what needs to be done is for each foo at sqlite.org to return >>> an error/undeliverable message if someone sends a message to it, citing >>> that all messages must be explicitly sent to the corresponding >>> foo at mailinglists.sqlite.org. That should handily solve the problem. -- >>> Darren Duncan >>> >> I see where you are coming from, but if the Reply-To field contains 2 >> email addresses and then the server penalizes you for using one of them, >> that might go down in history as the most-evil mailing-list quirk of all >> time. >> >> As to Mike's post - the dual mailing-list's reason for being is very clear >> and welcomed, no qualms there, just the Reply-to duplication that is >> quirky. I read all forum emails, I do not recall any multi-person decision >> to add this dual Reply-To thing, however memory is not my strength so I'm >> happy with the explanation - but I am wondering - is this done and dusted? >> Is there any chance we might re-open the discussion now that real-World >> scenarios have set in? >> >> It's an extremely minor irritation and will cause a few extra mail-traffic >> items at its worst - the only real casualty being my OCD, but I can't help >> thinking there is not a single good reason to keep the situation (unless >> someone can show the opposite). >> >> >> >> >>> On 2015-03-02 10:37 AM, Mike Owens wrote: >>> For what it is worth, the move to mailinglists.sqlite.org is a result of the Mailman web interface having to be hosted under the following two constraints: 1. It must be on port 80 2. It cannot be on sqlite.org port 80 I explained this reasoning in a previous email. The short version is because we are using two web servers on the VM that hosts both the sqlite.org website and fossil repos (althttpd) and the Mailman web interface (Apache). We previously did this on a single IP where mailman was on port 8080. However, we had a significant number of complaints from people who could not reach the Mailman web interface via sqlite.org:8080 due to firewall restrictions in their respective locations. So we did what we could to move it to port 80. So to satisfy these two constraints, mailinglists.sqlite.org was born. Unless somebody else knows better, Mailman does not allow one to use two domains for a given list. Either something will screw up with the mail routing or in the web interface if you try to use more than one. You have to pick one domain and stick with it. Thus I could not continue to support both the previous sqlite.org (:8080) domain and the new mailinglists.sqlite.org (:80) for the users list. So I made the move from the one to the other. Regarding the reply-to policy. I honestly don't remember the reasoning behind it. I know there was a big long discussion about it in the past (search the list) and after the dust settled we chose the current policy and that is the way it is configured today. I do believe the policy was a result of the consensus of the mailing list users. I can say that we do everything we can to make most of the people happy most of the time. That is the very reason we made this change to begin with -- to make it possible for everyone to use the list. It would have been easier to just keep things the same and let the people who can't reach port 8080 deal with it, but we did what we had to to make it accessible for them as well. There are a lot of variables in the system and we juggle them as best we can. Any feedback or suggestions are always welcome. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:18 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 12:45 +0200, R.Smith wrote: >> Ok, I've found the source of the list duplications. >> >> Some emails (Such as the one by J.K. Lowden 2-March-2015 re: Characters
[sqlite] List duplication
On 2015-03-03 12:42 AM, Darren Duncan wrote: > I think that what needs to be done is for each foo at sqlite.org to > return an error/undeliverable message if someone sends a message to > it, citing that all messages must be explicitly sent to the > corresponding foo at mailinglists.sqlite.org. That should handily solve > the problem. -- Darren Duncan I see where you are coming from, but if the Reply-To field contains 2 email addresses and then the server penalizes you for using one of them, that might go down in history as the most-evil mailing-list quirk of all time. As to Mike's post - the dual mailing-list's reason for being is very clear and welcomed, no qualms there, just the Reply-to duplication that is quirky. I read all forum emails, I do not recall any multi-person decision to add this dual Reply-To thing, however memory is not my strength so I'm happy with the explanation - but I am wondering - is this done and dusted? Is there any chance we might re-open the discussion now that real-World scenarios have set in? It's an extremely minor irritation and will cause a few extra mail-traffic items at its worst - the only real casualty being my OCD, but I can't help thinking there is not a single good reason to keep the situation (unless someone can show the opposite). > > On 2015-03-02 10:37 AM, Mike Owens wrote: >> For what it is worth, the move to mailinglists.sqlite.org is a result of >> the Mailman web interface having to be hosted under the following two >> constraints: >> >> 1. It must be on port 80 >> 2. It cannot be on sqlite.org port 80 >> >> I explained this reasoning in a previous email. The short version is >> because we are using two web servers on the VM that hosts both the >> sqlite.org website and fossil repos (althttpd) and the Mailman web >> interface (Apache). We previously did this on a single IP where >> mailman was >> on port 8080. However, we had a significant number of complaints from >> people who could not reach the Mailman web interface via sqlite.org:8080 >> due to firewall restrictions in their respective locations. So we did >> what >> we could to move it to port 80. >> >> So to satisfy these two constraints, mailinglists.sqlite.org was born. >> Unless somebody else knows better, Mailman does not allow one to use two >> domains for a given list. Either something will screw up with the mail >> routing or in the web interface if you try to use more than one. You >> have >> to pick one domain and stick with it. Thus I could not continue to >> support >> both the previous sqlite.org (:8080) domain and the new >> mailinglists.sqlite.org (:80) for the users list. So I made the move >> from >> the one to the other. >> >> Regarding the reply-to policy. I honestly don't remember the reasoning >> behind it. I know there was a big long discussion about it in the past >> (search the list) and after the dust settled we chose the current policy >> and that is the way it is configured today. I do believe the policy >> was a >> result of the consensus of the mailing list users. I can say that we do >> everything we can to make most of the people happy most of the time. >> That >> is the very reason we made this change to begin with -- to make it >> possible >> for everyone to use the list. It would have been easier to just keep >> things >> the same and let the people who can't reach port 8080 deal with it, >> but we >> did what we had to to make it accessible for them as well. There are >> a lot >> of variables in the system and we juggle them as best we can. >> >> Any feedback or suggestions are always welcome. >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:18 AM, David Woodhouse >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 12:45 +0200, R.Smith wrote: Ok, I've found the source of the list duplications. Some emails (Such as the one by J.K. Lowden 2-March-2015 re: Characters corrupt after importing...) contains a "Reply-To" field in the header with both list addresses which must have sneaked in there due to some automatic list feature. (By "Both" I mean the old: sqlite-users at sqlite.org and the new: >>> sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org) >>> >>> You don't need that, do you? Just hitting Reply All to a message which >>> is: >>> To: sqlite-users at sqlite.org >>> Reply-To: sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org >>> >>> would generate a message which ends up going to both, wouldn't it? >>> >>> (I can't easily test; I've configured my mailer to ignore abusive >>> Reply-To: headers from mailing lists where it can detect them, so my >>> Reply and Reply All buttons actually do what I *ask* them to.) >>> >>> But looking at the first message in the 'PhD Student' thread, it >>> appears >>> just as in my example above. And John KcKown's response of 26 Feb 2015 >>> 07:16:47 -0600 is indeed to both addresses, as if he'd done the correct >>> thing and simply hit 'Reply All'. >>> I usually use the "Reply to List" button
[sqlite] List duplication
Okay, I blocked the sqlite-users at sqlite.org address in the to address so if it is sent alone, it will be blocked. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Mike Owens wrote: > Oh okay. I see. I'll look into it. > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Darren Duncan > wrote: >> >> So in that case, still have the SQLite mail server reject messages to the >> old list rather than forwarding them, and let the problematic MUAs deal with >> it. The key thing is that by not forwarding but rejecting, the mail server >> isn't sending out 2 copies of messages directly, and the rejecting is >> reminding people to pay attention until the issue as a consequence goes >> away. Thus any explicit Reply-To headers can be left unmunged by the list >> server. -- Darren Duncan >> >> >> On 2015-03-02 7:10 PM, Mike Owens wrote: >>> >>> The problem is that this is the very bone of contention in the reply-to >>> religious war. Is it not? I may be wrong, but I thought this is the very >>> setting that people get so defensive about changing. As we have it now, >>> people have a suitable default pointing back to the (correct) list but >>> also >>> the freedom to change the reply-to header should they want to. If we >>> strip >>> the reply-to header in order to correct for the problematic MUA's, then >>> the >>> latter freedom is lost. And if I remember correctly, some people get very >>> angry about this. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Darren Duncan >>> wrote: >>> On 2015-03-02 6:14 PM, Mike Owens wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:27 PM, R.Smith wrote: > >> Ah, thank you, all makes sense now. If you change the first option to >> YES >> then nobody else's quirky reply-to headers will get into the list, and >> the >> second option remains as is (it should be setting the standard >> @mailinglists reply-to field) - this should solve the duplication >> issue, >> but if it is disagreeable to anyone, more consideration is needed. >> > > I almost don't want to even speak of this for fear that this issue will > raise it's ugly head again. Per the Mailmain documentation ( > http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html): > > Beware! Reply-To: munging is considered a religious issue and the > policies > >> you set here can ignite some of the most heated off-topic flame wars >> on >> your mailing lists. We'll try to stay as agnostic as possible, but our >> biases may still peak through. >> >> > That's as much as I'll say about that. > Well it doesn't have to be complete munging, rather just enough munging to remove references to the old mailing list name. -- Darren Duncan >> >> >> ___ >> sqlite-users mailing list >> sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org >> http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > > > > -- > Mike -- Mike
[sqlite] List duplication
Oh okay. I see. I'll look into it. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Darren Duncan wrote: > So in that case, still have the SQLite mail server reject messages to the > old list rather than forwarding them, and let the problematic MUAs deal > with it. The key thing is that by not forwarding but rejecting, the mail > server isn't sending out 2 copies of messages directly, and the rejecting > is reminding people to pay attention until the issue as a consequence goes > away. Thus any explicit Reply-To headers can be left unmunged by the list > server. -- Darren Duncan > > > On 2015-03-02 7:10 PM, Mike Owens wrote: > >> The problem is that this is the very bone of contention in the reply-to >> religious war. Is it not? I may be wrong, but I thought this is the very >> setting that people get so defensive about changing. As we have it now, >> people have a suitable default pointing back to the (correct) list but >> also >> the freedom to change the reply-to header should they want to. If we strip >> the reply-to header in order to correct for the problematic MUA's, then >> the >> latter freedom is lost. And if I remember correctly, some people get very >> angry about this. >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Darren Duncan >> wrote: >> >> On 2015-03-02 6:14 PM, Mike Owens wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:27 PM, R.Smith wrote: Ah, thank you, all makes sense now. If you change the first option to > YES > then nobody else's quirky reply-to headers will get into the list, and > the > second option remains as is (it should be setting the standard > @mailinglists reply-to field) - this should solve the duplication > issue, > but if it is disagreeable to anyone, more consideration is needed. > > I almost don't want to even speak of this for fear that this issue will raise it's ugly head again. Per the Mailmain documentation ( http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html): Beware! Reply-To: munging is considered a religious issue and the policies you set here can ignite some of the most heated off-topic flame wars on > your mailing lists. We'll try to stay as agnostic as possible, but our > biases may still peak through. > > > That's as much as I'll say about that. >>> Well it doesn't have to be complete munging, rather just enough munging >>> to >>> remove references to the old mailing list name. -- Darren Duncan >>> >> > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > -- Mike
[sqlite] List duplication
The problem is that this is the very bone of contention in the reply-to religious war. Is it not? I may be wrong, but I thought this is the very setting that people get so defensive about changing. As we have it now, people have a suitable default pointing back to the (correct) list but also the freedom to change the reply-to header should they want to. If we strip the reply-to header in order to correct for the problematic MUA's, then the latter freedom is lost. And if I remember correctly, some people get very angry about this. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Darren Duncan wrote: > On 2015-03-02 6:14 PM, Mike Owens wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:27 PM, R.Smith wrote: >> >>> Ah, thank you, all makes sense now. If you change the first option to YES >>> then nobody else's quirky reply-to headers will get into the list, and >>> the >>> second option remains as is (it should be setting the standard >>> @mailinglists reply-to field) - this should solve the duplication issue, >>> but if it is disagreeable to anyone, more consideration is needed. >>> >> >> I almost don't want to even speak of this for fear that this issue will >> raise it's ugly head again. Per the Mailmain documentation ( >> http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html): >> >> Beware! Reply-To: munging is considered a religious issue and the policies >> >>> you set here can ignite some of the most heated off-topic flame wars on >>> your mailing lists. We'll try to stay as agnostic as possible, but our >>> biases may still peak through. >>> >>> >> That's as much as I'll say about that. >> > > Well it doesn't have to be complete munging, rather just enough munging to > remove references to the old mailing list name. -- Darren Duncan > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > -- Mike
[sqlite] List duplication
So far so good. I only got one copy of your test message. I also sent my own message to just sqlite-users at sqlite.org and it was bounced as expected. -- Darren Duncan On 2015-03-02 8:14 PM, Mike Owens wrote: > Okay, I blocked the sqlite-users at sqlite.org address in the to address > so if it is sent alone, it will be blocked. > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Mike Owens wrote: >> Oh okay. I see. I'll look into it. >> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Darren Duncan >> wrote: >>> >>> So in that case, still have the SQLite mail server reject messages to the >>> old list rather than forwarding them, and let the problematic MUAs deal with >>> it. The key thing is that by not forwarding but rejecting, the mail server >>> isn't sending out 2 copies of messages directly, and the rejecting is >>> reminding people to pay attention until the issue as a consequence goes >>> away. Thus any explicit Reply-To headers can be left unmunged by the list >>> server. -- Darren Duncan >>> >>> >>> On 2015-03-02 7:10 PM, Mike Owens wrote: The problem is that this is the very bone of contention in the reply-to religious war. Is it not? I may be wrong, but I thought this is the very setting that people get so defensive about changing. As we have it now, people have a suitable default pointing back to the (correct) list but also the freedom to change the reply-to header should they want to. If we strip the reply-to header in order to correct for the problematic MUA's, then the latter freedom is lost. And if I remember correctly, some people get very angry about this. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Darren Duncan wrote: > On 2015-03-02 6:14 PM, Mike Owens wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:27 PM, R.Smith wrote: >> >>> Ah, thank you, all makes sense now. If you change the first option to >>> YES >>> then nobody else's quirky reply-to headers will get into the list, and >>> the >>> second option remains as is (it should be setting the standard >>> @mailinglists reply-to field) - this should solve the duplication >>> issue, >>> but if it is disagreeable to anyone, more consideration is needed. >>> >> >> I almost don't want to even speak of this for fear that this issue will >> raise it's ugly head again. Per the Mailmain documentation ( >> http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html): >> >> Beware! Reply-To: munging is considered a religious issue and the >> policies >> >>> you set here can ignite some of the most heated off-topic flame wars >>> on >>> your mailing lists. We'll try to stay as agnostic as possible, but our >>> biases may still peak through. >>> >>> >> That's as much as I'll say about that. >> > > Well it doesn't have to be complete munging, rather just enough munging > to > remove references to the old mailing list name. -- Darren Duncan
[sqlite] List duplication
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:27 PM, R.Smith wrote: > > Ah, thank you, all makes sense now. If you change the first option to YES > then nobody else's quirky reply-to headers will get into the list, and the > second option remains as is (it should be setting the standard > @mailinglists reply-to field) - this should solve the duplication issue, > but if it is disagreeable to anyone, more consideration is needed. > I almost don't want to even speak of this for fear that this issue will raise it's ugly head again. Per the Mailmain documentation ( http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html): Beware! Reply-To: munging is considered a religious issue and the policies > you set here can ignite some of the most heated off-topic flame wars on > your mailing lists. We'll try to stay as agnostic as possible, but our > biases may still peak through. > That's as much as I'll say about that. > Thanks again Mike for the list maintenance and the quick replies! > My pleasure. The SQLite community is a delight to work with. It's always seemed to be composed of intelligent, well-behaved people. > > > > >> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:04 PM, R.Smith wrote: >> >> >>> On 2015-03-03 12:42 AM, Darren Duncan wrote: >>> >>> I think that what needs to be done is for each foo at sqlite.org to return an error/undeliverable message if someone sends a message to it, citing that all messages must be explicitly sent to the corresponding foo at mailinglists.sqlite.org. That should handily solve the problem. -- Darren Duncan I see where you are coming from, but if the Reply-To field contains 2 >>> email addresses and then the server penalizes you for using one of them, >>> that might go down in history as the most-evil mailing-list quirk of all >>> time. >>> >>> As to Mike's post - the dual mailing-list's reason for being is very >>> clear >>> and welcomed, no qualms there, just the Reply-to duplication that is >>> quirky. I read all forum emails, I do not recall any multi-person >>> decision >>> to add this dual Reply-To thing, however memory is not my strength so I'm >>> happy with the explanation - but I am wondering - is this done and >>> dusted? >>> Is there any chance we might re-open the discussion now that real-World >>> scenarios have set in? >>> >>> It's an extremely minor irritation and will cause a few extra >>> mail-traffic >>> items at its worst - the only real casualty being my OCD, but I can't >>> help >>> thinking there is not a single good reason to keep the situation (unless >>> someone can show the opposite). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2015-03-02 10:37 AM, Mike Owens wrote: For what it is worth, the move to mailinglists.sqlite.org is a result > of > the Mailman web interface having to be hosted under the following two > constraints: > > 1. It must be on port 80 > 2. It cannot be on sqlite.org port 80 > > I explained this reasoning in a previous email. The short version is > because we are using two web servers on the VM that hosts both the > sqlite.org website and fossil repos (althttpd) and the Mailman web > interface (Apache). We previously did this on a single IP where mailman > was > on port 8080. However, we had a significant number of complaints from > people who could not reach the Mailman web interface via > sqlite.org:8080 > due to firewall restrictions in their respective locations. So we did > what > we could to move it to port 80. > > So to satisfy these two constraints, mailinglists.sqlite.org was born. > Unless somebody else knows better, Mailman does not allow one to use > two > domains for a given list. Either something will screw up with the mail > routing or in the web interface if you try to use more than one. You > have > to pick one domain and stick with it. Thus I could not continue to > support > both the previous sqlite.org (:8080) domain and the new > mailinglists.sqlite.org (:80) for the users list. So I made the move > from > the one to the other. > > Regarding the reply-to policy. I honestly don't remember the reasoning > behind it. I know there was a big long discussion about it in the past > (search the list) and after the dust settled we chose the current > policy > and that is the way it is configured today. I do believe the policy > was > a > result of the consensus of the mailing list users. I can say that we do > everything we can to make most of the people happy most of the time. > That > is the very reason we made this change to begin with -- to make it > possible > for everyone to use the list. It would have been easier to just keep > things > the same and let the people who can't reach port 8080 deal with it, but > we > did what we had to to make it accessible for them as well. There are a > lot > of variables in
[sqlite] List duplication
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Darren Duncan wrote: > As near as I can tell, the Reply-To header from this list only contains > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org and does not also contain > sqlite-users at sqlite.org so therefore I don't see the problem you're > stating. But if it sometimes does so, then the list manager needs to ensure > that sqlite-users at sqlite.org is never in the Reply-To header of messages > from the list. -- Darren Duncan > It is. As mentioned above, the explicit reply-to header is empty. I think some people's MUA's are doing this. I just answered an off-list email from somebody and the reply to was set to the sqlite-users at sqlite.org email, which makes me think it is the MUA and not Mailman. Mike
[sqlite] List duplication
So in that case, still have the SQLite mail server reject messages to the old list rather than forwarding them, and let the problematic MUAs deal with it. The key thing is that by not forwarding but rejecting, the mail server isn't sending out 2 copies of messages directly, and the rejecting is reminding people to pay attention until the issue as a consequence goes away. Thus any explicit Reply-To headers can be left unmunged by the list server. -- Darren Duncan On 2015-03-02 7:10 PM, Mike Owens wrote: > The problem is that this is the very bone of contention in the reply-to > religious war. Is it not? I may be wrong, but I thought this is the very > setting that people get so defensive about changing. As we have it now, > people have a suitable default pointing back to the (correct) list but also > the freedom to change the reply-to header should they want to. If we strip > the reply-to header in order to correct for the problematic MUA's, then the > latter freedom is lost. And if I remember correctly, some people get very > angry about this. > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Darren Duncan > wrote: > >> On 2015-03-02 6:14 PM, Mike Owens wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:27 PM, R.Smith wrote: >>> Ah, thank you, all makes sense now. If you change the first option to YES then nobody else's quirky reply-to headers will get into the list, and the second option remains as is (it should be setting the standard @mailinglists reply-to field) - this should solve the duplication issue, but if it is disagreeable to anyone, more consideration is needed. >>> >>> I almost don't want to even speak of this for fear that this issue will >>> raise it's ugly head again. Per the Mailmain documentation ( >>> http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html): >>> >>> Beware! Reply-To: munging is considered a religious issue and the policies >>> you set here can ignite some of the most heated off-topic flame wars on your mailing lists. We'll try to stay as agnostic as possible, but our biases may still peak through. >>> That's as much as I'll say about that. >>> >> >> Well it doesn't have to be complete munging, rather just enough munging to >> remove references to the old mailing list name. -- Darren Duncan
[sqlite] List duplication
On 2015-03-02 6:14 PM, Mike Owens wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:27 PM, R.Smith wrote: >> Ah, thank you, all makes sense now. If you change the first option to YES >> then nobody else's quirky reply-to headers will get into the list, and the >> second option remains as is (it should be setting the standard >> @mailinglists reply-to field) - this should solve the duplication issue, >> but if it is disagreeable to anyone, more consideration is needed. > > I almost don't want to even speak of this for fear that this issue will > raise it's ugly head again. Per the Mailmain documentation ( > http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html): > > Beware! Reply-To: munging is considered a religious issue and the policies >> you set here can ignite some of the most heated off-topic flame wars on >> your mailing lists. We'll try to stay as agnostic as possible, but our >> biases may still peak through. >> > > That's as much as I'll say about that. Well it doesn't have to be complete munging, rather just enough munging to remove references to the old mailing list name. -- Darren Duncan
[sqlite] List duplication
On 2015-03-02 6:08 PM, Mike Owens wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Darren Duncan > wrote: >> As near as I can tell, the Reply-To header from this list only contains >> sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org and does not also contain >> sqlite-users at sqlite.org so therefore I don't see the problem you're >> stating. But if it sometimes does so, then the list manager needs to ensure >> that sqlite-users at sqlite.org is never in the Reply-To header of messages >> from the list. -- Darren Duncan > > It is. As mentioned above, the explicit reply-to header is empty. I think > some people's MUA's are doing this. I just answered an off-list email from > somebody and the reply to was set to the sqlite-users at sqlite.org email, > which makes me think it is the MUA and not Mailman. A benefit of my proposal is, if implemented, the instances of other people's explicit reply-to headers to sqlite-users at sqlite.org will disappear very quickly, as the messages they are replying to will be ones propagated through the list after the change rather than before. -- Darren Duncan
[sqlite] List duplication
For clarity, here is the currently policy for Reply-to as it is set in Mailman: - Should any existing Reply-To: header found in the original message be stripped? If so, this will be done regardless of whether an explict Reply-To: header is added by Mailman or not. : *NO* - Where are replies to list messages directed? *This list* - Explicit Reply-To: header : *None* On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:04 PM, R.Smith wrote: > > > On 2015-03-03 12:42 AM, Darren Duncan wrote: > >> I think that what needs to be done is for each foo at sqlite.org to return >> an error/undeliverable message if someone sends a message to it, citing >> that all messages must be explicitly sent to the corresponding >> foo at mailinglists.sqlite.org. That should handily solve the problem. -- >> Darren Duncan >> > > I see where you are coming from, but if the Reply-To field contains 2 > email addresses and then the server penalizes you for using one of them, > that might go down in history as the most-evil mailing-list quirk of all > time. > > As to Mike's post - the dual mailing-list's reason for being is very clear > and welcomed, no qualms there, just the Reply-to duplication that is > quirky. I read all forum emails, I do not recall any multi-person decision > to add this dual Reply-To thing, however memory is not my strength so I'm > happy with the explanation - but I am wondering - is this done and dusted? > Is there any chance we might re-open the discussion now that real-World > scenarios have set in? > > It's an extremely minor irritation and will cause a few extra mail-traffic > items at its worst - the only real casualty being my OCD, but I can't help > thinking there is not a single good reason to keep the situation (unless > someone can show the opposite). > > > > >> On 2015-03-02 10:37 AM, Mike Owens wrote: >> >>> For what it is worth, the move to mailinglists.sqlite.org is a result of >>> the Mailman web interface having to be hosted under the following two >>> constraints: >>> >>> 1. It must be on port 80 >>> 2. It cannot be on sqlite.org port 80 >>> >>> I explained this reasoning in a previous email. The short version is >>> because we are using two web servers on the VM that hosts both the >>> sqlite.org website and fossil repos (althttpd) and the Mailman web >>> interface (Apache). We previously did this on a single IP where mailman >>> was >>> on port 8080. However, we had a significant number of complaints from >>> people who could not reach the Mailman web interface via sqlite.org:8080 >>> due to firewall restrictions in their respective locations. So we did >>> what >>> we could to move it to port 80. >>> >>> So to satisfy these two constraints, mailinglists.sqlite.org was born. >>> Unless somebody else knows better, Mailman does not allow one to use two >>> domains for a given list. Either something will screw up with the mail >>> routing or in the web interface if you try to use more than one. You have >>> to pick one domain and stick with it. Thus I could not continue to >>> support >>> both the previous sqlite.org (:8080) domain and the new >>> mailinglists.sqlite.org (:80) for the users list. So I made the move >>> from >>> the one to the other. >>> >>> Regarding the reply-to policy. I honestly don't remember the reasoning >>> behind it. I know there was a big long discussion about it in the past >>> (search the list) and after the dust settled we chose the current policy >>> and that is the way it is configured today. I do believe the policy was >>> a >>> result of the consensus of the mailing list users. I can say that we do >>> everything we can to make most of the people happy most of the time. That >>> is the very reason we made this change to begin with -- to make it >>> possible >>> for everyone to use the list. It would have been easier to just keep >>> things >>> the same and let the people who can't reach port 8080 deal with it, but >>> we >>> did what we had to to make it accessible for them as well. There are a >>> lot >>> of variables in the system and we juggle them as best we can. >>> >>> Any feedback or suggestions are always welcome. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:18 AM, David Woodhouse >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 12:45 +0200, R.Smith wrote: > Ok, I've found the source of the list duplications. > > Some emails (Such as the one by J.K. Lowden 2-March-2015 re: Characters > corrupt after importing...) contains a "Reply-To" field in the header > with both list addresses which must have sneaked in there due to some > automatic list feature. (By "Both" I mean the old: > sqlite-users at sqlite.org and the new: > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org) You don't need that, do you? Just hitting Reply All to a message which is: To: sqlite-users at sqlite.org Reply-To: sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org would generate a message which ends up going to both, wouldn't it? (I
[sqlite] List duplication
On 2015-03-02 3:04 PM, R.Smith wrote: > On 2015-03-03 12:42 AM, Darren Duncan wrote: >> I think that what needs to be done is for each foo at sqlite.org to return an >> error/undeliverable message if someone sends a message to it, citing that all >> messages must be explicitly sent to the corresponding >> foo at mailinglists.sqlite.org. That should handily solve the problem. -- >> Darren >> Duncan > > I see where you are coming from, but if the Reply-To field contains 2 email > addresses and then the server penalizes you for using one of them, that might > go > down in history as the most-evil mailing-list quirk of all time. As near as I can tell, the Reply-To header from this list only contains sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org and does not also contain sqlite-users at sqlite.org so therefore I don't see the problem you're stating. But if it sometimes does so, then the list manager needs to ensure that sqlite-users at sqlite.org is never in the Reply-To header of messages from the list. -- Darren Duncan
[sqlite] List duplication
I think that what needs to be done is for each foo at sqlite.org to return an error/undeliverable message if someone sends a message to it, citing that all messages must be explicitly sent to the corresponding foo at mailinglists.sqlite.org. That should handily solve the problem. -- Darren Duncan On 2015-03-02 10:37 AM, Mike Owens wrote: > For what it is worth, the move to mailinglists.sqlite.org is a result of > the Mailman web interface having to be hosted under the following two > constraints: > > 1. It must be on port 80 > 2. It cannot be on sqlite.org port 80 > > I explained this reasoning in a previous email. The short version is > because we are using two web servers on the VM that hosts both the > sqlite.org website and fossil repos (althttpd) and the Mailman web > interface (Apache). We previously did this on a single IP where mailman was > on port 8080. However, we had a significant number of complaints from > people who could not reach the Mailman web interface via sqlite.org:8080 > due to firewall restrictions in their respective locations. So we did what > we could to move it to port 80. > > So to satisfy these two constraints, mailinglists.sqlite.org was born. > Unless somebody else knows better, Mailman does not allow one to use two > domains for a given list. Either something will screw up with the mail > routing or in the web interface if you try to use more than one. You have > to pick one domain and stick with it. Thus I could not continue to support > both the previous sqlite.org (:8080) domain and the new > mailinglists.sqlite.org (:80) for the users list. So I made the move from > the one to the other. > > Regarding the reply-to policy. I honestly don't remember the reasoning > behind it. I know there was a big long discussion about it in the past > (search the list) and after the dust settled we chose the current policy > and that is the way it is configured today. I do believe the policy was a > result of the consensus of the mailing list users. I can say that we do > everything we can to make most of the people happy most of the time. That > is the very reason we made this change to begin with -- to make it possible > for everyone to use the list. It would have been easier to just keep things > the same and let the people who can't reach port 8080 deal with it, but we > did what we had to to make it accessible for them as well. There are a lot > of variables in the system and we juggle them as best we can. > > Any feedback or suggestions are always welcome. > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:18 AM, David Woodhouse > wrote: > >> On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 12:45 +0200, R.Smith wrote: >>> Ok, I've found the source of the list duplications. >>> >>> Some emails (Such as the one by J.K. Lowden 2-March-2015 re: Characters >>> corrupt after importing...) contains a "Reply-To" field in the header >>> with both list addresses which must have sneaked in there due to some >>> automatic list feature. (By "Both" I mean the old: >>> sqlite-users at sqlite.org and the new: >> sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org) >> >> You don't need that, do you? Just hitting Reply All to a message which >> is: >> To: sqlite-users at sqlite.org >> Reply-To: sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org >> >> would generate a message which ends up going to both, wouldn't it? >> >> (I can't easily test; I've configured my mailer to ignore abusive >> Reply-To: headers from mailing lists where it can detect them, so my >> Reply and Reply All buttons actually do what I *ask* them to.) >> >> But looking at the first message in the 'PhD Student' thread, it appears >> just as in my example above. And John KcKown's response of 26 Feb 2015 >> 07:16:47 -0600 is indeed to both addresses, as if he'd done the correct >> thing and simply hit 'Reply All'. >> >>> I usually use the "Reply to List" button (Thunderbird) which replies >>> correctly, >> >> Note that that is considered extremely anti-social in many cases, >> because it cuts some people out of discussions entirely. See >> http://david.woodhou.se/reply-to-list.html for a full discussion. >> >> -- >> dwmw2
[sqlite] List duplication
Ok, I've found the source of the list duplications. Some emails (Such as the one by J.K. Lowden 2-March-2015 re: Characters corrupt after importing...) contains a "Reply-To" field in the header with both list addresses which must have sneaked in there due to some automatic list feature. (By "Both" I mean the old: sqlite-users at sqlite.org and the new: sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org) I usually use the "Reply to List" button (Thunderbird) which replies correctly, but if you only hit the "Reply to" button then BOTH addresses are inserted in the "To:" field of the message to be sent - which of course results in the duplication (Such as the duplicated message from H. Gunter in reply to the message above). An astute eye might catch this and remove a reference, but mostly nobody cares to study the things that should work automatically - and they shouldn't need to. May I ask the list admin to see if any mention of the old list email address in automatic message body generated text still lingers and can be gotten rid of? Thank you kindly! Ryan
[sqlite] List duplication
For what it is worth, the move to mailinglists.sqlite.org is a result of the Mailman web interface having to be hosted under the following two constraints: 1. It must be on port 80 2. It cannot be on sqlite.org port 80 I explained this reasoning in a previous email. The short version is because we are using two web servers on the VM that hosts both the sqlite.org website and fossil repos (althttpd) and the Mailman web interface (Apache). We previously did this on a single IP where mailman was on port 8080. However, we had a significant number of complaints from people who could not reach the Mailman web interface via sqlite.org:8080 due to firewall restrictions in their respective locations. So we did what we could to move it to port 80. So to satisfy these two constraints, mailinglists.sqlite.org was born. Unless somebody else knows better, Mailman does not allow one to use two domains for a given list. Either something will screw up with the mail routing or in the web interface if you try to use more than one. You have to pick one domain and stick with it. Thus I could not continue to support both the previous sqlite.org (:8080) domain and the new mailinglists.sqlite.org (:80) for the users list. So I made the move from the one to the other. Regarding the reply-to policy. I honestly don't remember the reasoning behind it. I know there was a big long discussion about it in the past (search the list) and after the dust settled we chose the current policy and that is the way it is configured today. I do believe the policy was a result of the consensus of the mailing list users. I can say that we do everything we can to make most of the people happy most of the time. That is the very reason we made this change to begin with -- to make it possible for everyone to use the list. It would have been easier to just keep things the same and let the people who can't reach port 8080 deal with it, but we did what we had to to make it accessible for them as well. There are a lot of variables in the system and we juggle them as best we can. Any feedback or suggestions are always welcome. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:18 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 12:45 +0200, R.Smith wrote: > > Ok, I've found the source of the list duplications. > > > > Some emails (Such as the one by J.K. Lowden 2-March-2015 re: Characters > > corrupt after importing...) contains a "Reply-To" field in the header > > with both list addresses which must have sneaked in there due to some > > automatic list feature. (By "Both" I mean the old: > > sqlite-users at sqlite.org and the new: > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org) > > You don't need that, do you? Just hitting Reply All to a message which > is: > To: sqlite-users at sqlite.org > Reply-To: sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org > > would generate a message which ends up going to both, wouldn't it? > > (I can't easily test; I've configured my mailer to ignore abusive > Reply-To: headers from mailing lists where it can detect them, so my > Reply and Reply All buttons actually do what I *ask* them to.) > > But looking at the first message in the 'PhD Student' thread, it appears > just as in my example above. And John KcKown's response of 26 Feb 2015 > 07:16:47 -0600 is indeed to both addresses, as if he'd done the correct > thing and simply hit 'Reply All'. > > > I usually use the "Reply to List" button (Thunderbird) which replies > > correctly, > > Note that that is considered extremely anti-social in many cases, > because it cuts some people out of discussions entirely. See > http://david.woodhou.se/reply-to-list.html for a full discussion. > > -- > dwmw2 > > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > -- Mike
[sqlite] List duplication
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 12:45 +0200, R.Smith wrote: > Ok, I've found the source of the list duplications. > > Some emails (Such as the one by J.K. Lowden 2-March-2015 re: Characters > corrupt after importing...) contains a "Reply-To" field in the header > with both list addresses which must have sneaked in there due to some > automatic list feature. (By "Both" I mean the old: > sqlite-users at sqlite.org and the new: sqlite-users at > mailinglists.sqlite.org) You don't need that, do you? Just hitting Reply All to a message which is: To: sqlite-users at sqlite.org Reply-To: sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org would generate a message which ends up going to both, wouldn't it? (I can't easily test; I've configured my mailer to ignore abusive Reply-To: headers from mailing lists where it can detect them, so my Reply and Reply All buttons actually do what I *ask* them to.) But looking at the first message in the 'PhD Student' thread, it appears just as in my example above. And John KcKown's response of 26 Feb 2015 07:16:47 -0600 is indeed to both addresses, as if he'd done the correct thing and simply hit 'Reply All'. > I usually use the "Reply to List" button (Thunderbird) which replies > correctly, Note that that is considered extremely anti-social in many cases, because it cuts some people out of discussions entirely. See http://david.woodhou.se/reply-to-list.html for a full discussion. -- dwmw2
[sqlite] List duplication
On Sat, 2015-02-28 at 14:10 -0800, Darren Duncan wrote: > > My comment on "whoever" is meant to be plural. > > I think as a general principle that whenever people reply to list messages, > they > look at the headers of the message they are writing and make sure the list > doesn't appear twice in the recipients field. > > If the result of hitting reply or reply-all to some message in a client puts > the > same recipient in the address bar twice, then the users should remove the > extra > copies, that's what I do, it can be simple as that. That's ironic. The problem here is the Reply-To: setting on the mailing list. If a user hits 'Reply' on a message, that should always go to the sender of the message they're looking at. If a user hits 'Reply to All' on a message, *that* should go to everyone. This list has a 'Reply-To' header which hijacks the private reply so that it goes to the list... which a lot of list admins do precisely because they *don't* want their users to have to think at all, because they assume their users are so dim that they can't even manage to correctly choose between the private 'Reply' button and the public 'Reply All' button that's *right* next to it. (To be fair, there's often a lot of truth in that assumption, but it's largely a self-fulfilling prophecy because although things *should* be simple, a lot of people are confused by what is *not* inconsistent behaviour of the private "Reply" button which ought to *always* give a private reply and is now just confusing because of this misguided attempt to make things simpler.) So what happens here is people do the right thing and hit 'Reply All' to reply publicly, and that misguided Reply-To: header is corrupting the behaviour so that their reply goes *both* to the added Reply-To: address 'sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org' *and* to the address which was in the To: or Cc: of the previous message, 'sqlite-users at sqlite.org'. So the only reason people now have to pay careful attention to the recipients in their reply is because the list "helpfully" hacks things... ostensibly so that they *don't* have to pay attention to what they're doing. Nice :) -- dwmw2
[sqlite] List duplication
On 27 Feb 2015 at 22:47, Simon Slavin wrote: > On 27 Feb 2015, at 10:04pm, R.Smith wrote: > >> Ah, I think this is the answer probably. Maybe people hitting the "reply to >> all" or such and it copies across lists. Simon is possibly not subscribed to >> both, hence not getting duplicates. > > I confirm that I am not subscribed to the -dev list. I assert that it's nothing to do with the -dev list. The dupes I've had here are because people are sending to sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org and also to sqlite-users at sqlite.org. -- Cheers -- Tim
[sqlite] List duplication
On 2015-02-28 3:15 AM, R.Smith wrote: > On 2015-02-28 05:02 AM, Darren Duncan wrote: >> I'm seeing a lot of message duplication too, but the ones I see are due to >> someone putting the list address twice as a recipient. >> >> For example a bunch of the "PhD student" messages say "To" >> sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org plus "Cc" sqlite-users at sqlite.org >> . >> >> But both of those are aliases for the same list. >> >> Whoever is doing this, sending your messages to both, please stop, just send >> to one, and then people would get one copy. > > I don't think it is someone specific, I've seen these from many people - I > think > it has to do with the way the reply-to field is interpreted and/or the way > mail > clients interpret it when you hit the "Reply" or "Reply-to-List" buttons. I'm > using an up-to-date Mozilla Thunderbird client which seems to avoid the issue > (unless I am not seeing my own duplicates). > > I find it hard to imagine that suddenly many list users changed the way they > respond to forum emails. The culprit is more likely a change in some > underlying > system set-up. My comment on "whoever" is meant to be plural. I think as a general principle that whenever people reply to list messages, they look at the headers of the message they are writing and make sure the list doesn't appear twice in the recipients field. If the result of hitting reply or reply-all to some message in a client puts the same recipient in the address bar twice, then the users should remove the extra copies, that's what I do, it can be simple as that. -- Darren Duncan
[sqlite] List duplication
On 2015-02-28 05:02 AM, Darren Duncan wrote: > I'm seeing a lot of message duplication too, but the ones I see are > due to someone putting the list address twice as a recipient. > > For example a bunch of the "PhD student" messages say "To" > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org plus "Cc" sqlite-users at sqlite.org . > > But both of those are aliases for the same list. > > Whoever is doing this, sending your messages to both, please stop, > just send to one, and then people would get one copy. I don't think it is someone specific, I've seen these from many people - I think it has to do with the way the reply-to field is interpreted and/or the way mail clients interpret it when you hit the "Reply" or "Reply-to-List" buttons. I'm using an up-to-date Mozilla Thunderbird client which seems to avoid the issue (unless I am not seeing my own duplicates). I find it hard to imagine that suddenly many list users changed the way they respond to forum emails. The culprit is more likely a change in some underlying system set-up.
[sqlite] List duplication
On 2015-02-28 12:47 AM, Simon Slavin wrote: > On 27 Feb 2015, at 10:04pm, R.Smith wrote: > >> Ah, I think this is the answer probably. Maybe people hitting the "reply to >> all" or such and it copies across lists. Simon is possibly not subscribed >> to both, hence not getting duplicates. > I confirm that I am not subscribed to the -dev list. > > Can you tell me whether duplicate messages have the same or different > message-id headers ? Email clients are meant to identify messages with the > same message-id as the same message. But sometimes mailing lists break and > put different IDs on the same message sent through different routes. Indeed I did heed your advice earlier regarding this, and will check - it's just that I've already deleted all duplicated messages (due to OCD), so as soon as the next duplications arrive, I will confirm the IDs and be sure to report back. Thanks!
[sqlite] List duplication
On 2015-02-27 10:09 PM, Peter Aronson wrote: > I've seen it too. All of the duplicate messages appear to have been sent to > both sqlite-dev at mailinglists.sqlite.org and sqlite-dev at sqlite.org or to > both sqlite-usersmailinglists.sqlite.org and sqlite-users at sqlite.org. Ah, I think this is the answer probably. Maybe people hitting the "reply to all" or such and it copies across lists. Simon is possibly not subscribed to both, hence not getting duplicates. Might this be fixed with a reply-to on list headers adjustment?
[sqlite] List duplication
On 27 Feb 2015, at 10:04pm, R.Smith wrote: > Ah, I think this is the answer probably. Maybe people hitting the "reply to > all" or such and it copies across lists. Simon is possibly not subscribed to > both, hence not getting duplicates. I confirm that I am not subscribed to the -dev list. Can you tell me whether duplicate messages have the same or different message-id headers ? Email clients are meant to identify messages with the same message-id as the same message. But sometimes mailing lists break and put different IDs on the same message sent through different routes. Simon.
[sqlite] List duplication
Me too, for about the last 7-10 days or so! -Original Message- From: R.Smith Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 9:38 PM To: sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org Subject: [sqlite] List duplication Hi all, Just a quick question, I've been getting duplicated mails via the forum. It seems very random, roughly 1 in 4 mails I receive in duplicate. Has anyone else been getting duplicate mails? It's not a biggie, I just delete the duplicates. Also, it might be my email settings or setup being the culprit - if anyone has an idea what I might check, it will be most helpful - thanks. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
[sqlite] List duplication
Hi all, Just a quick question, I've been getting duplicated mails via the forum. It seems very random, roughly 1 in 4 mails I receive in duplicate. Has anyone else been getting duplicate mails? It's not a biggie, I just delete the duplicates. Also, it might be my email settings or setup being the culprit - if anyone has an idea what I might check, it will be most helpful - thanks.
[sqlite] List duplication
On 27 Feb 2015, at 7:38pm, R.Smith wrote: > Just a quick question, I've been getting duplicated mails via the forum. It > seems very random, roughly 1 in 4 mails I receive in duplicate. Has anyone > else been getting duplicate mails? Not me. Check back on the message-id and received headers of two duplicates. Do they have different message-id headers ? Simon.
[sqlite] List duplication
I'm seeing a lot of message duplication too, but the ones I see are due to someone putting the list address twice as a recipient. For example a bunch of the "PhD student" messages say "To" sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org plus "Cc" sqlite-users at sqlite.org . But both of those are aliases for the same list. Whoever is doing this, sending your messages to both, please stop, just send to one, and then people would get one copy. -- Darren Duncan On 2015-02-27 12:09 PM, Peter Aronson wrote: > I've seen it too. All of the duplicate messages appear to have been sent to > both sqlite-dev at mailinglists.sqlite.org and sqlite-dev at sqlite.org or to > both sqlite-usersmailinglists.sqlite.org and sqlite-users at sqlite.org. > > Peter > > > On Fri, 2/27/15, R.Smith wrote: > > Subject: [sqlite] List duplication > To: sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org > Date: Friday, February 27, 2015, 12:38 PM > > Hi all, > > Just a quick question, I've been getting duplicated mails > via the forum. > It seems very random, roughly 1 in 4 mails I receive in > duplicate. Has > anyone else been getting duplicate mails? > > It's not a biggie, I just delete the duplicates. Also, it > might be my > email settings or setup being the culprit - if anyone has an > idea what I > might check, it will be most helpful - thanks.
[sqlite] List duplication
I've not been having problems with duplicates, but I have been randomly having commoners end up in my spam bucket for one reason or another over the last 48 hours or so. I've specifically set a filter in GMail that if anything comes in for this mailing list to NOT go to spam, yet On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Simon Slavin wrote: > > On 27 Feb 2015, at 7:38pm, R.Smith wrote: > > > Just a quick question, I've been getting duplicated mails via the forum. > It seems very random, roughly 1 in 4 mails I receive in duplicate. Has > anyone else been getting duplicate mails? > > Not me. > > Check back on the message-id and received headers of two duplicates. Do > they have different message-id headers ? > > Simon. > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users >
[sqlite] List duplication
I've seen it too. All of the duplicate messages appear to have been sent to both sqlite-dev at mailinglists.sqlite.org and sqlite-dev at sqlite.org or to both sqlite-usersmailinglists.sqlite.org and sqlite-users at sqlite.org. Peter On Fri, 2/27/15, R.Smith wrote: Subject: [sqlite] List duplication To: sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org Date: Friday, February 27, 2015, 12:38 PM Hi all, Just a quick question, I've been getting duplicated mails via the forum. It seems very random, roughly 1 in 4 mails I receive in duplicate. Has anyone else been getting duplicate mails? It's not a biggie, I just delete the duplicates. Also, it might be my email settings or setup being the culprit - if anyone has an idea what I might check, it will be most helpful - thanks. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
