Hi Frank, On Wednesday, 2007-11-14 21:42:42 +0100, Frank Schönheit wrote:
> > As a side note: users@ lists are irregularly read by developers, and for > > some projects like framework a [EMAIL PROTECTED] doesn't even exist and > > wouldn't make much sense either. Better would be some > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. > > Hmm - which means Bernd has to move it to the > nice-to-have-not-exactly-quickly-to-implement-feature-wishes-for-eis list. ? why not? If it would be one single dedicated list there shouldn't be a problem. > For ease of implementation in EIS, the feedback list should probably be > the same in all projects. Introducing yet another dedicated feedback > list in every list doesn't sound like a good idea. This seems to be a misunderstanding, the @ooo I used above was meant to be read as @openoffice.org, no project involved. > I don't know for other projects, in DBA, both users@ and dev@ are > low-traffic and read equally. Same for @sc lists, I don't know about other projects though. Most users seem to use the global [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, probably because it is much easier to find. > Perhaps [EMAIL PROTECTED] could be the choice > then. It would contradict my understanding of "dev", since it's really a > user discussing the feature ... Seconded. Feedback should also be possible for everyone, not only subscribed users, which doesn't suit the dev@ lists. > Another possibility: we use a global [EMAIL PROTECTED] (either [EMAIL > PROTECTED], or > a new dedicated feedback list). At least the UX member of the iTeam will > read this, and can delegate to the appropriate list. Would that scale? > > Bear in mind that CollabNet does Reply-To munging (yes, still considered > > harmful) so you would end up with two different Reply-To headers where > > it depends on order and the mail client which one would actually be > > used. Nothing reliable. > > They really add a second header? I always though they simply overwrite > an existing one, but this is even worse ... :( I'd say overwriting an existing one would be even worse, with two headers present I can at least "visually" detect the original intention of the author in case I wanted to reply off-list. > However, looking at some recent feature mails in DBA, it seems somebody > already sets a "reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" - not sure whether this is EIS, > or > collab.net. hmm.. now that you mention, same for sc. I recall that [EMAIL PROTECTED] already received replies to feature mails. I assume this is setup at Collab, so if changed there the reply-to munging problem would be moot on these allowed-posters lists. The allfeatures list though has Reply-To [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Eike -- OOo/SO Calc core developer. Number formatter stricken i18n transpositionizer. SunSign 0x87F8D412 : 2F58 5236 DB02 F335 8304 7D6C 65C9 F9B5 87F8 D412 OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't send personal mail to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] account, which I use for mailing lists only and don't read from outside Sun. Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks.
pgppMvchUnsMc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
