Re: Q: List Policy
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 11/22/08 06:15, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > I thought kernel hackers were uber-geeks. How can they not implement > decent mail filtering? If you use Mutt, you take upon yourself the > responsibility to set up a server-side filter, and if you use a GUI, then > setting up client-side filtering is trivially easy. That's an interesting question. I don't have any answers, but my best guess is that, just like Debian will remain a no-CC zone, the Linux kernel MLs have their own long-standing preferences. Like the "don't attach stuff, send them in the main body" rule, which AFAIK mostly exists because of how many popular MUAs used to behave (and I have no idea if they still do. Mutt, which I use, does the right thing to in-line attachments). I did not start in this thread with this opinion, but after reading it, it was pretty clear to me that to-cc-or-not-cc really is just a preference thing, like vi-or-emacs. Some of the reasons that make a person prefer one over the other will be technical, but there are enough of them on both sides to balance things out back into "it is just a matter of preference". Like you can see in other replies to this thread, there are numerous technical ways to make sure you will not miss a message (or have annoying duplicates of it where you don't want them) with or without using Cc:. All solutions for either case (including the one I described) depend on cooperation from your MUA or mail filtering/delivery setup, which translates to "not universionally available". As for the kernel hackers being uber-geeks, well, even if they were (I bet many aren't), this wouldn't make them uber-mail-geeks. There is a reason why it was necessary to add a file in the Linux kernel Documentation/ directory about how to configure your MUA to not mangle in-line patches. I believe there is an interesting field of study there. > (Of course, even if you use a GUI, if you are a geek you should > implement fetchmail/getmail, an MTA, a spam filter and procmail or > mailfilter and IMAP, so that you can switch MUAs as easily as you switch > underwear, or even access your mail from across the LAN or even Internet. > But that's a different topic...) As I said, not everyone thinks this is a worthy use of their time, even if they have the skills to do it ;-) -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:45:33PM -0500, Celejar wrote: > On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:15:25 -0700 > Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... > > > Answers are some from people who are still learning but mostly from > > people who have very little to learn from following this list*. Really > > good answers come from a very small group of special people who set > > the tone of the list. These special people also wrote the Debian > > rules. Debian list rules exist to codify best practice in list poster > > behavior. Best practice is thought to be that behavior that allows > > minimum effort writing of a good answer by a person who knows the good > > answer. These people are a valuable resource. They are the elite of > > Debian. They deserve respect. Life is easier. You get better answers > > faster if you play by the rules that they have written. And playing by > > the rules they wrote is itself a sign of the respect that is due them. > > Your points are well taken, but please note that some of the most > consistently and prolifically helpful people on the list are not DDs, > and at least some of them would be the first to admit that they do > benefit from the list. Florian Kulzer, Douglas A. Tutty, Sven Joachim > and Tzafrir Cohen come to mind. > Well, yes. I intended no disrespect for anyone, especially not for helpful people on this list, but also no disrespect for people who imagine that established Debian policy can be lightly ignored. There is a social contract here. A social contract is a rather old idea that has not much traction in the modern world. I had not recognized the people that you mention as being receivers of much help, but I must admit to having little interest in keeping a close tally of who gets and how much. I would like to believe that these people, also, give better answers than they would were Debian rules ignored. Peace. -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:15:25 -0700 Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > Answers are some from people who are still learning but mostly from > people who have very little to learn from following this list*. Really > good answers come from a very small group of special people who set > the tone of the list. These special people also wrote the Debian > rules. Debian list rules exist to codify best practice in list poster > behavior. Best practice is thought to be that behavior that allows > minimum effort writing of a good answer by a person who knows the good > answer. These people are a valuable resource. They are the elite of > Debian. They deserve respect. Life is easier. You get better answers > faster if you play by the rules that they have written. And playing by > the rules they wrote is itself a sign of the respect that is due them. Your points are well taken, but please note that some of the most consistently and prolifically helpful people on the list are not DDs, and at least some of them would be the first to admit that they do benefit from the list. Florian Kulzer, Douglas A. Tutty, Sven Joachim and Tzafrir Cohen come to mind. > Paul E Condon Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 06:18:36PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Monday 24 November 2008 02:32:14 Chris Bannister wrote: > > What harm? What's worse; rec a CC or missing out on crucial > > help/information? > > That depends, whose perspective? > > > We are talking about newbies here. > > No, we're talking about the list in general and how a policy to coddle > newbies effects it. Which is why the question above. To the newbie who > can't > figure out "go to the same place you went to post to get an answer" the > "harm" > is that they don't get a reply. To the list where the policy is to CC on > every message every person who participates has to enact some sort of manual > or automatic filtering for the plethora of cruft with which they will be > inundated. > > Most people are newbies once. Having to filter useless CCs is a lifetime > problem. So on balance the more harm goes to the inconvenience of dozens to > thousands of people in perpetuity. > > At its core a CC-everyone-on-all-list-replies is harmful in the exact > same > manner filtering spam via Challenge-Reponse is harmful. > > http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/challenge-response.html > > It foists the responsibility which should land on the individual onto > many > innocent third parties. > Steve, This is an interesting social cost calculation reason for preferring Debian policy over other possible policies. I would like to add a somewhat different kind of social calculation: On this list there are questions, answers, and discussion. Discussions concern the kinds of questions that admit of multiple points of view - how best to organize backups on a small scale computing site, how strict to be in enforcing rules, etc. All can participate. Questions are dominated by newbies and people who are still learning. Answers are some from people who are still learning but mostly from people who have very little to learn from following this list*. Really good answers come from a very small group of special people who set the tone of the list. These special people also wrote the Debian rules. Debian list rules exist to codify best practice in list poster behavior. Best practice is thought to be that behavior that allows minimum effort writing of a good answer by a person who knows the good answer. These people are a valuable resource. They are the elite of Debian. They deserve respect. Life is easier. You get better answers faster if you play by the rules that they have written. And playing by the rules they wrote is itself a sign of the respect that is due them. *Other than ideas on how to construct well written answers. -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Monday 24 November 2008 02:32:14 Chris Bannister wrote: > What harm? What's worse; rec a CC or missing out on crucial > help/information? That depends, whose perspective? > We are talking about newbies here. No, we're talking about the list in general and how a policy to coddle newbies effects it. Which is why the question above. To the newbie who can't figure out "go to the same place you went to post to get an answer" the "harm" is that they don't get a reply. To the list where the policy is to CC on every message every person who participates has to enact some sort of manual or automatic filtering for the plethora of cruft with which they will be inundated. Most people are newbies once. Having to filter useless CCs is a lifetime problem. So on balance the more harm goes to the inconvenience of dozens to thousands of people in perpetuity. At its core a CC-everyone-on-all-list-replies is harmful in the exact same manner filtering spam via Challenge-Reponse is harmful. http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/challenge-response.html It foists the responsibility which should land on the individual onto many innocent third parties. -- Steve C. Lamb | But who can decide what they dream PGP Key: 1FC01004 | and dream I do ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Monday 24 November 2008 02:31:53 Chris Bannister wrote: > True, I uderstand that, but my thoughts are concerning newbies who post > to the list and not being subscribed won't see a reply to their post. How many archives for the list exist? They have methods of finding the reply; often in the same manner they found the list in the first place. -- Steve C. Lamb | But who can decide what they dream PGP Key: 1FC01004 | and dream I do ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:23:43PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote: > > > Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the > > > point in not CCing on a closed list. > > > > Cc'ing on a closed list would be really stupid :) > > Actually, that's the one place where anyone not on the list would > request carbon copies. (But it still shouldn't be the default.) Ummm, if the list is closed, how could they post anyway? > > > Sorry, it doesn't explain why CCing is "discouraged" on an open > > > list. > > Because people who are subscribed to the list don't require extra > copies of mails. [And since anyone who wants a copy can request it > using MFT: or manually, it's perfectly fine.] True, I uderstand that, but my thoughts are concerning newbies who post to the list and not being subscribed won't see a reply to their post. You could argue, I suppose, that if a newbie can't cope with that then they shouldn't be using Debian anyway. I disagree with that line of thought, and believe some initial hand-holding is necessary to stop unnecessary duplication of messages. > > New posters should read the Code of Conduct? Listmasters, would you > > consider adding a link to the CoC at the bottom of list mails? > > http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct is linked from the > introduction, which is on the page where you learn what lists we have > and how to subscribe to them. Someone who doesn't bother to read that > won't bother to read the links posted at the bottom of a mail. Exactly! Also they may only know of debian-user through a google search. -- Chris. == I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen F Roberts -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 03:44:08AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > Chris Bannister wrote: > > Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the > > point in not CCing on a closed list. > > For the same reasons. Whether the list is open or closed is irrelevant to > the harm that CCing people unbidden causes. A list being open or closed is What harm? What's worse; rec a CC or missing out on crucial help/information? > also irrelevant to the fact that it is incumbent on the sender to ensure they > receive replies, capable of finding replies or requesting copies if they > cannot fulfill the previous two trivial tasks. We are talking about newbies here. -- Chris. == I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen F Roberts -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Teemu Likonen wrote: > This is the last one: I suggest that you try to see norms of > communication in social terms and concepts, not mathematical. The > email-using world, as I see it, is mainly social. What you're missing is that I am seeing them in social terms as well. I see them in terms of not what is present but what should be. I see it in terms of what is fairest for all involved even if it involves some personal responsibility on the part of all involved vs. the chaos of apathy, rudeness and selfishness. I just happen to be able to back that up with well thought out, logical reasons which most people tend to ignore in their quest to defend the hypocritical status quo. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Q: List Policy
Steve Lamb (2008-11-23 04:14 -0800) wrote: > Problem is that this one can be quantified in what is harmful. It > isn't a matter of preferences but of facts. > That's not preference, that's simple mathematics. I guess my suggestions failed. :-) This is the last one: I suggest that you try to see norms of communication in social terms and concepts, not mathematical. The email-using world, as I see it, is mainly social. Good luck -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Sunday 23 November 2008 03:09:04 Teemu Likonen wrote: > It's usually about using the "correct" clients and > configuration, mailing list configuration, Reply-To and Mail-Followup-To > usage etc. So far nobody has managed to convince everybody that their > system is the best one. Hence my point: there is no perfect universally > agreed policy and we just have to live with it. Problem is that this one can be quantified in what is harmful. It isn't a matter of preferences but of facts. > A related suggestion is that it is quite pointless to present arguments > in terms of "if you used this client and had this feature" because there > is a zoo of different ways of receiving and reading mail and in general > pretty much only "Reply" and "Reply to all" buttons work reliably. With > these limitations the large body of people tend to use the means which > are the most convenient and least painful for _them_. Yes. But as has been pointed out on this, and many other lists, when something causes extra work for the large portion of people then it is not something that should be done for the convenience of certain people based on their preferences in software. IE, the appropriate response on this, and many, many, other forums is that the person who is insisting the community add extra work to all members to appease them is told to shove it and change their behaviors. CCing caused work for more people. Filtering replies sent to you via the list causes work for one person. That's not preference, that's simple mathematics. N > 1 when N is the entire userbase of the mailing list. Anyone arguing preference for CCing is arguing for work for all people involved. Put plainly, opinion vs. facts. Facts when when opinion are contrary to them. Just that simple. -- Steve C. Lamb | But who can decide what they dream PGP Key: 1FC01004 | and dream I do ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Steve Lamb (2008-11-22 17:59 -0800) wrote: > None of the situations you cited are compelling enough to warrant the > complete duplication of every message the list server sends out. Not a > one. That's good because my point was and is elsewhere. I'm not trying to compel anybody about certain mailing-list policy. I have experience from many different lists and communities (perhaps you have too). It's a fact that different communities have different ways of maintaining lists, different conventions, policies etc. They have their own reasons for communicating the way they do. That's exactly why I'm _not_ trying to push any agenda to others. I'm trying to show that there are different ones and different ways of seeing things. I have seen many discussions and flame wars about the subject. It's usually about using the "correct" clients and configuration, mailing list configuration, Reply-To and Mail-Followup-To usage etc. So far nobody has managed to convince everybody that their system is the best one. Hence my point: there is no perfect universally agreed policy and we just have to live with it. So I'm suggesting that you don't go telling Linux kernel developers how they should organize and manage their communication (or Git, Emacs and Bazaar developers who have exactly the same conventions). They are not stupid because they have different preferences for communication. I also suggest that if you interact with those communities you adapt to their social norms because usually this way the communication works best. I'm referring to your previous message in which you wrote: > To be blunt, if those people can't figure out how to filter on > In-Reply-To they have no business hacking the kernel. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.user/339607/focus=339609 A related suggestion is that it is quite pointless to present arguments in terms of "if you used this client and had this feature" because there is a zoo of different ways of receiving and reading mail and in general pretty much only "Reply" and "Reply to all" buttons work reliably. With these limitations the large body of people tend to use the means which are the most convenient and least painful for _them_. And let me emphasize that I'm not saying how things should be on Debian lists. I'm just talking about the email-using world in general. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Saturday 22 November 2008 19:40:14 Ron Johnson wrote: > Don't wear underwear? AKA, the commando geek! Certainly one I would hope is able to filter on in-reply-to. ;) -- Steve C. Lamb | But who can decide what they dream PGP Key: 1FC01004 | and dream I do ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On 11/22/08 19:47, Steve Lamb wrote: On Saturday 22 November 2008 09:39:12 Ron Johnson wrote: Wear fewer clothes... Nah, I change underwear once a day. Most days I move from my home machine which is still on TBird to a work VM on which I test KMail. So 3 client changes an average day vs. 1 underwear change. :) Don't wear underwear? -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Saturday 22 November 2008 10:44:35 Teemu Likonen wrote: > Steve Lamb (2008-11-22 04:40 -0800) wrote: > > That is absolute, 100% pure rubbish. This is solvable by technical > > means, right now, today, if email client authors would just implement > > a feature [...] > I think that "being solvable" is not an option. Too many if's in your > message. No, there was one. If they implemented scoring. I went on to explain that it is still possible today through other means. Scoring, however, is one of the most efficient ways of handling a large volume of correspondence in a public forum. I feel that email clients would benefit from letting people score mailing lists. But that isn't a requirement to spot mail to you in a list. > I'd like to remind everybody that email is a distributed > system. Yes, so the axiom of any distributed system applies. *Be CONSERVATIVE IN WHAT YOU SEND, be liberal in what you accept.* Message + CC is not conservative. > We can't control what others do, we can only choose what we do > ourselves and which mail messages we pay attention to. None of the situations you cited are compelling enough to warrant the complete duplication of every message the list server sends out. Not a one. > In short, we don't know how others receive, read and compose their mail, > or who are subscribers of certain mailing list (people join and leave > all the time). Exactly. That is why we provide CCs *when requested* because that is the *conservative* approach on what to send. We're presuming they can take care of the method of reading replies unless otherwise told. The alternative is hardly conservative. > What kind of reply policies and email-client > configurations we should enforce for these varying situations? I think > they would soon became quite complicated. How do we make people to > understand and follow such policies? I have an idea. Provide CCs when requested, draw up a list of acceptable behavior in the list and have people read that before they sign up. Call it a Code of Conduct. Oh... wait... > Then there's the Debian way: Reply-To is not pointing to the list > address and using "Reply to all" is discouraged. Some people like this > policy. Nevertheless, it causes some difficulties: people sometimes > press "Reply" and thus send mail to the author only while expecting it > to go to the list. Sometimes they expect something else. Sometimes > people press "Reply to all" and annoy some other people with > carbon-copies and duplicate messages. So even with the Debian way, > depending on the point of view, mail sometimes goes to "wrong" places. But that is not the point. The point isn't to prevent people from sending mail to the "wrong" place as "wrong" varies from message to message. The point is which policy sensibly places the least strain on the greatest number of people. Defaulting to CC to all means everyone has to either delete all duplicate messages or implement MDA/MTA/MUA duplicate filters. Simply put *some* people missing *some* mail *some* of the time or *some* people sending mail to the "wrong" place *some* of the time is less strain on the system as a whole compared to *all* people having to manually or automatically deal with *all* duplicates *all* of the time. > This is the reality and it's pretty complicated. I see it as pretty simple. A person posts. They, now, have dozens of ways to check for replies. There is simply no need for a broad CC-everybody because someone, somewhere, for some reason might be incapable of getting some replies. -- Steve C. Lamb | But who can decide what they dream PGP Key: 1FC01004 | and dream I do ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Saturday 22 November 2008 09:39:12 Ron Johnson wrote: > Wear fewer clothes... Nah, I change underwear once a day. Most days I move from my home machine which is still on TBird to a work VM on which I test KMail. So 3 client changes an average day vs. 1 underwear change. :) -- Steve C. Lamb | But who can decide what they dream PGP Key: 1FC01004 | and dream I do ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Saturday 22 November 2008 12:49:29 Andrei Popescu wrote: > Of the open-source mailers I know only Thunderbird/Icedove doesn't > support Reply-To-List by default. Claws-Mail even has a smart Reply > button that does Reply-To-List by default if it detects a list. Now it's > time for the webmails to implement it. Squirrelmail supports it with an addon which, unlike TBird's, actually works! In fact it also recognizes the list-unsubscribe header, too. -- Steve C. Lamb | But who can decide what they dream PGP Key: 1FC01004 | and dream I do ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Sat,22.Nov.08, 20:44:35, Teemu Likonen wrote: > 1. Tell people to press the "Reply" button and configure mailing > list software to add Reply-To header which points to the list > address. This goes against the standards (and you probably know it). One thing I like about Debian is that it sticks to the standards even if it is in minority. Of the open-source mailers I know only Thunderbird/Icedove doesn't support Reply-To-List by default. Claws-Mail even has a smart Reply button that does Reply-To-List by default if it detects a list. Now it's time for the webmails to implement it. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q: List Policy
Steve Lamb (2008-11-22 04:40 -0800) wrote: > On Saturday 22 November 2008 04:15:42 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >> Actually, to be very blunt: CCing people is absolutely the only way >> to deal with massive ammounts of email and very-high-traffic lists >> when you *care* about not ignoring email that you should have read. > > That is absolute, 100% pure rubbish. This is solvable by technical > means, right now, today, if email client authors would just implement > a feature [...] I think that "being solvable" is not an option. Too many if's in your message. I'd like to remind everybody that email is a distributed system. We can't control what others do, we can only choose what we do ourselves and which mail messages we pay attention to. The fact is that mail is read with many different devices with different software and with different features and configurations. Obviously it is also read by different people with varying level of expertise. Mailing lists are read through mail-to-news gateways which may or may not support bidirectional message delivery. Some people read mail trough web-based mailing list archives because they're only occasionally interesting in the list discussion. Some people filter their mail differently depending on if they are in the To field or in the Cc field. Some discussion threads are cross-posted to two or more mailing lists because it concerns more than one developer group. Perhaps the discussion is also CCed to some email-based bug tracking system and the original bug reporter. In short, we don't know how others receive, read and compose their mail, or who are subscribers of certain mailing list (people join and leave all the time). What kind of reply policies and email-client configurations we should enforce for these varying situations? I think they would soon became quite complicated. How do we make people to understand and follow such policies? My opinion: there's no way. Surely there are policies and there are email standards. But there is also the practice. On a large scale, perhaps with a little exaggeration, there are only two quite reliable features in email: 1. Reply 2. Reply to all Anything that requires more advanced technique and configuration than these can't be trusted to work reliably. System must be based on these two. Other features may _sometimes_ work. People can (and very likely will) talk endlessly about the correct and incorrect usage of Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To headers, about good and bad email clients, good and bad configuration etc., but I don't think it will ever prevent mail from going sometimes to wrong places. We can't really control how other people send their mail; we can only choose what we read (or ignore) and how we configure our own system. So I assume that, for large audience, only "Reply" and "Reply to all" work reliably. Based on that there are generally two ways for making a mailing list sort of work for normal people without endless and error-prone configuration and header-editing hassle: 1. Tell people to press the "Reply" button and configure mailing list software to add Reply-To header which points to the list address. 2. Tell people to press the "Reply to all" button. Both have their advantages and disadvantages and the subject has been pretty much discussed to death. In the option 2 a person may perhaps edit the recipient fields manually but there's no guarantee that he will edit it "correctly" from some other person's point of view. Then there's the Debian way: Reply-To is not pointing to the list address and using "Reply to all" is discouraged. Some people like this policy. Nevertheless, it causes some difficulties: people sometimes press "Reply" and thus send mail to the author only while expecting it to go to the list. Sometimes they expect something else. Sometimes people press "Reply to all" and annoy some other people with carbon-copies and duplicate messages. So even with the Debian way, depending on the point of view, mail sometimes goes to "wrong" places. This is the reality and it's pretty complicated. It's not because people are "stupid" or something; it's because it is impossible on enforce a perfectly unified policy and client configuration in distributed system. So let's just configure our own email clients so that dealing with the reality and different lists is as easy as possible. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On 11/22/08 09:10, Steve Lamb wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: (Of course, even if you use a GUI, if you are a geek you should implement fetchmail/getmail, an MTA, a spam filter and procmail or mailfilter and IMAP, so that you can switch MUAs as easily as you switch underwear, or even access your mail from across the LAN or even Internet. But that's a different topic...) Ha, whimp! I change MUAs easier than I switch underwear! :P Wear fewer clothes... -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Ron Johnson wrote: > (Of course, even if you use a GUI, if you are a geek you should > implement fetchmail/getmail, an MTA, a spam filter and procmail or > mailfilter and IMAP, so that you can switch MUAs as easily as you switch > underwear, or even access your mail from across the LAN or even > Internet. But that's a different topic...) Ha, whimp! I change MUAs easier than I switch underwear! :P signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Q: List Policy
On 11/22/08 06:15, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: [snip] Actually, to be very blunt: CCing people is absolutely the only way to deal with massive ammounts of email and very-high-traffic lists when you *care* about not ignoring email that you should have read. If you want an example of a CC policy radically different from Debian's, take a look at the development mailinglists for the Linux kernel and all related projects. There, the policy is that you are to *always* CC everyone that should (or might even remotely need to) get an email, in addition to sending it to the lists. Otherwise, the chances that such an email will be lost in the ocean of stuff, or never reach the right people. [snip] In the end, it boils down to the fact that most people have lame mail filtering setups that cannot sort delivery mailboxes in the right priority and do proper destination-based duplicate supression (so that you can get automated "if it is also destined to a Debian ML, file into the ML folder, and have any further duplicates supressed), and are not in any hurry to deploy one. I thought kernel hackers were uber-geeks. How can they not implement decent mail filtering? If you use Mutt, you take upon yourself the responsibility to set up a server-side filter, and if you use a GUI, then setting up client-side filtering is trivially easy. (Of course, even if you use a GUI, if you are a geek you should implement fetchmail/getmail, an MTA, a spam filter and procmail or mailfilter and IMAP, so that you can switch MUAs as easily as you switch underwear, or even access your mail from across the LAN or even Internet. But that's a different topic...) -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On 11/22/08 02:02, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Fri,21.Nov.08, 17:59:30, Ron Johnson wrote: On 11/21/08 14:23, Don Armstrong wrote: [snip] Because people who are subscribed to the list don't require extra copies of mails. [And since anyone who wants a copy can request it using MFT: or manually, it's perfectly fine.] MFT? Mail-Followup-To: (or did you mean something else with your question?) Nope, Thanks. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > If you want an example of a CC policy radically different from Debian's, > take a look at the development mailinglists for the Linux kernel and all > related projects. There, the policy is that you are to *always* CC everyone > that should (or might even remotely need to) get an email, in addition to > sending it to the lists. Otherwise, the chances that such an email will be > lost in the ocean of stuff, or never reach the right people. I always though one subscribed to mailling lists exactly to be able to get all emails easily, and to let the list software do all the work, instead of having people use "Reply all" to create a manual pseudo-list. -- Once harm has been done, even a fool understands it. -- Homer Eduardo M KALINOWSKI [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://move.to/hpkb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Saturday 22 November 2008 04:15:42 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > Actually, to be very blunt: CCing people is absolutely the only way to deal > with massive ammounts of email and very-high-traffic lists when you *care* > about not ignoring email that you should have read. That is absolute, 100% pure rubbish. This is solvable by technical means, right now, today, if email client authors would just implement a feature that has been standard for decades in forums that far outstrip the volume of mailing lists, newsgroups. The feature? Scoring. Even now if you post on a high volume mailing lists there is absolutely no excuse to miss a message that is posted to it if you're really interested. FilteronReferences or in-reply-to! Here are the relevant headers from your message: References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Since, at least in KMail, I can set any prefix in my MSGID I put a static string there then filter on an In-Reply-To that starts with that string and ends with "@dmiyu.org", highlight it, filter it into a different folder, whatever. I don't miss mail and I don't require a harmful, blanket policy that annoys many people and wastes resources. > If you want an example of a CC policy radically different from Debian's, > take a look at the development mailinglists for the Linux kernel and all > related projects. There, the policy is that you are to *always* CC > everyone that should (or might even remotely need to) get an email, in > addition to sending it to the lists. Otherwise, the chances that such an > email will be lost in the ocean of stuff, or never reach the right people. To be blunt, if those people can't figure out how to filter on In-Reply-To they have no business hacking the kernel. > IMO the truth behind the CC policy in Debian lists is that it is the policy > not to do so for a LONG time now, and a lot of people is bothered by CCs, > so they resist any such changes (note: I am NOT judging whether they're > right or wrong for doing that, if one could even classify such an issue in > that way). Sorry, but it is a sane method of doing so. Quite frankly if I put inject something into a conversation and it later turns a different direction that doesn't interest me I can simply stop reading those messages. Or, to put it another way, you can unsubscribe from a list. You can't unsubscribe from a CC list. > IMO, the reason many people are bothered by the CCs is that the > typical DM, DD and Debian user just plain don't *care* about stuff from > debian-user/-policy/-private/* bothering him all the time. He'd rather > ignore it completely until he decides to read that ML folder, if ever. I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that. > In the end, it boils down to the fact that most people have lame mail > filtering setups that cannot sort delivery mailboxes in the right priority > and do proper destination-based duplicate supression (so that you can get > automated "if it is also destined to a Debian ML, file into the ML folder, > and have any further duplicates supressed), and are not in any hurry to > deploy one. Uh-huh. If that's the case then why CC? Sorry, there is absolutely 0 cases where CCing when unrequested is appropriate. Your volume argument is complete rubbish. Forcing people to filter because of other people's inconvenient poor habits is akin to the harm done by C-R. Finally, don't think I don't get the cute idea of you CCing me this message. I am not amused, don't do it again. I have never ask for a CC from this list and never will. To CC me against the list's CoC clearly shows you're more interesting in trolling than contributing anything meaningful to the conversation. -- Steve C. Lamb | But who can decide what they dream PGP Key: 1FC01004 | and dream I do ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008, Steve Lamb wrote: > Chris Bannister wrote: > > Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the > > point in not CCing on a closed list. > > For the same reasons. Whether the list is open or closed is irrelevant to > the harm that CCing people unbidden causes. A list being open or closed is > also irrelevant to the fact that it is incumbent on the sender to ensure they > receive replies, capable of finding replies or requesting copies if they > cannot fulfill the previous two trivial tasks. Actually, to be very blunt: CCing people is absolutely the only way to deal with massive ammounts of email and very-high-traffic lists when you *care* about not ignoring email that you should have read. If you want an example of a CC policy radically different from Debian's, take a look at the development mailinglists for the Linux kernel and all related projects. There, the policy is that you are to *always* CC everyone that should (or might even remotely need to) get an email, in addition to sending it to the lists. Otherwise, the chances that such an email will be lost in the ocean of stuff, or never reach the right people. IMO the truth behind the CC policy in Debian lists is that it is the policy not to do so for a LONG time now, and a lot of people is bothered by CCs, so they resist any such changes (note: I am NOT judging whether they're right or wrong for doing that, if one could even classify such an issue in that way). IMO, the reason many people are bothered by the CCs is that the typical DM, DD and Debian user just plain don't *care* about stuff from debian-user/-policy/-private/* bothering him all the time. He'd rather ignore it completely until he decides to read that ML folder, if ever. Which is why we *DO* CC people directly every time it is clearly their problem/fault/responsibility. We have entire systems to make sure people can ask automated tools to add them to such "cc's", even. But that certainly doesn't cover untargeted ML posts and replies to them. In the end, it boils down to the fact that most people have lame mail filtering setups that cannot sort delivery mailboxes in the right priority and do proper destination-based duplicate supression (so that you can get automated "if it is also destined to a Debian ML, file into the ML folder, and have any further duplicates supressed), and are not in any hurry to deploy one. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Chris Bannister wrote: > Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the > point in not CCing on a closed list. For the same reasons. Whether the list is open or closed is irrelevant to the harm that CCing people unbidden causes. A list being open or closed is also irrelevant to the fact that it is incumbent on the sender to ensure they receive replies, capable of finding replies or requesting copies if they cannot fulfill the previous two trivial tasks. -- Steve C. Lamb | But who can decide what they dream PGP Key: 1FC01004 | and dream I do ---+- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Q: List Policy
On Fri,21.Nov.08, 17:59:30, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 11/21/08 14:23, Don Armstrong wrote: > [snip] >> >> Because people who are subscribed to the list don't require extra >> copies of mails. [And since anyone who wants a copy can request it >> using MFT: or manually, it's perfectly fine.] > > MFT? Mail-Followup-To: (or did you mean something else with your question?) Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q: List Policy
On 11/21/08 14:23, Don Armstrong wrote: [snip] Because people who are subscribed to the list don't require extra copies of mails. [And since anyone who wants a copy can request it using MFT: or manually, it's perfectly fine.] MFT? -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:40:16PM +, Brad Rogers wrote: > On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:35:54 -0800 > Brian Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Brian, > > > Whoops, I just checked that message again and noticed that the list > > signature wasn't added with the attached PGP signature. Sorry. > > There's some weirdness that results in it not always being displayed. > Viewing message source reveals that it is indeed there. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=345283 Ken -- Ken Irving -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 02:35:54PM -0800, Brian Marshall wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 02:31:25PM -0800, Brian Marshall wrote: > > Odd. I see the list signatures with mutt, but PGP signatures are > > recognized for me. > > Whoops, I just checked that message again and noticed that the list > signature wasn't added with the attached PGP signature. Sorry. Take another look at the raw, unfiltered message and you'll see that the list signature is there, appended as it is for every message. The list software doesn't make any attempt to ammend the message as could be done pretty easily. I really don't know why that is. Ken -- Ken Irving -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:35:54 -0800 Brian Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello Brian, > Whoops, I just checked that message again and noticed that the list > signature wasn't added with the attached PGP signature. Sorry. There's some weirdness that results in it not always being displayed. Viewing message source reveals that it is indeed there. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent" Black man got a lot of problems, but he don't mind throwing a brick White Riot - The Clash signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Q: List Policy
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 02:31:25PM -0800, Brian Marshall wrote: > Odd. I see the list signatures with mutt, but PGP signatures are > recognized for me. Whoops, I just checked that message again and noticed that the list signature wasn't added with the attached PGP signature. Sorry. -- Brian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q: List Policy
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 09:12:39AM -0900, Ken Irving wrote: > > > > Regards, > > Andrei > > -- > > If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. > > (Albert Einstein) > > > > [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] > > [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Encoding: 7bit, Size: 0.2K --] > > > > [-- application/pgp-signature is unsupported (use 'v' to view this part) --] Odd. I see the list signatures with mutt, but PGP signatures are recognized for me. -- Brian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q: List Policy
On Fri,21.Nov.08, 12:23:43, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote: > > > Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the > > > point in not CCing on a closed list. > > > > Cc'ing on a closed list would be really stupid :) > > Actually, that's the one place where anyone not on the list would > request carbon copies. (But it still shouldn't be the default.) I understood the "closed" as "subscriber only", but I'm sure Chris will correct me if I was wrong. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q: List Policy
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote: > > Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the > > point in not CCing on a closed list. > > Cc'ing on a closed list would be really stupid :) Actually, that's the one place where anyone not on the list would request carbon copies. (But it still shouldn't be the default.) > > Sorry, it doesn't explain why CCing is "discouraged" on an open > > list. Because people who are subscribed to the list don't require extra copies of mails. [And since anyone who wants a copy can request it using MFT: or manually, it's perfectly fine.] > New posters should read the Code of Conduct? Listmasters, would you > consider adding a link to the CoC at the bottom of list mails? http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct is linked from the introduction, which is on the page where you learn what lists we have and how to subscribe to them. Someone who doesn't bother to read that won't bother to read the links posted at the bottom of a mail. Don Armstrong -- My spelling ability, or rather the lack thereof, is one of the wonders of the modern world. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 07:12:55PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote: > [snip] > New posters should read the Code of Conduct? Listmasters, would you > consider adding a link to the CoC at the bottom of list mails? do we need more stuff on the bottom ? > > Regards, > Andrei > -- > If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. > (Albert Einstein) -- "One minute I'm just another rabbit and happy about it, next minute *whazaam*, I'm thinking. That's a major drawback if you're looking for happiness as a rabbit, let me tell you. You want grass and sex, not thoughts like 'What's it all about, when you get right down to it?'" (Moving Pictures) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q: List Policy
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 07:12:55PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote: > > > > Sorry, it doesn't explain why CCing is "discouraged" on an open list. > > New posters should read the Code of Conduct? Listmasters, would you > consider adding a link to the CoC at the bottom of list mails? :-) Maybe it's just me, but I find it ironic that something is suggested top be added to the bottom of messages in a message that wouldn't show it if it was there. Here's what I see (using mutt) after the above line (quote marks added): > > Regards, > Andrei > -- > If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. > (Albert Einstein) > > [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] > [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Encoding: 7bit, Size: 0.2K --] > > [-- application/pgp-signature is unsupported (use 'v' to view this part) --] Maybe that problem should be fixed before adding more stuff? Granted, the majority of d-u messages are not multipart-encoded, so the special list suffix lines are usually visible. Even if visible, though, I doubt that a CoC link would do much good. Ken -- Ken Irving -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote: > Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the > point in not CCing on a closed list. Cc'ing on a closed list would be really stupid :) > > It is also not really necessary to subscribe in order to read the > > replies; they are available (after a short delay) at > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2008/11/threads.html > > And newbies know about that? > > > Hope this explains, > > Sorry, it doesn't explain why CCing is "discouraged" on an open list. New posters should read the Code of Conduct? Listmasters, would you consider adding a link to the CoC at the bottom of list mails? Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q: List Policy
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:27:47AM +0100, s. keeling wrote: > Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:30:04AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote: > > > makes this mistake, though. And I seem to remember a few posts where it > > > was brought up that some users who post are not subscribed. So, go > > > figure. > > > > Catch 22 -- if they are not subscribed they will not be able to read > > any .sig file asking to be cc'd if not subscribed. Also they will not > > rec any replies if not subscribed. :( > > I'm not sure I understand that. If a newbie isn't subscribed and they send a message to the list (not knowing CoC) they will not rec a reply to their problem unless they hunt for it on the website. This may cause the newbie to go back to Vista. :-( One of the *BSD mailing lists explicitly CC's because there are newbies posting. [..] > > It makes more sense to either not allow posting unless subscribed > > or have an open list but cc unless they explicitly request not be > > cc'd. > > I'm not subscribed, and haven't been for years. I read the list in > the nntp "mail to news gateway" (cf. Usenet). Don't assume people are > only going to do it in the ways you know of. There may be/likely are > many other ways. No doubt, but I don't see the relevance. Am I wrong to assume newbies may not do this. > > Can anyone explain why the current policy is sane? > > History. It makes sense if you know why the choices were made, a long > time ago, using much different software, and much different user > mores. With current (read "possibly compliant") software, it's a > shot in the dark, requiring much research to find software that either > works as it should or works as *it* thinks is best. I prefer the former. I mean with regarding to not CCing on an open list. I don't think it has anything to do with software. > Back on topic, I've been using the .sig below for years, and the > "Please don't Cc: me" has also been ignored for years. That is a problem. On the bright side, at least you don't miss out on your reply. > Perhaps we need one of the listmasters to enforce the usage > guidelines? Post HTML or Cc: too often, and ... Why can't we "police" ourselves? Normally, a polite message to the offender is sufficient. Unfortunately, HTML postings are occurring quite regularly, so any polite message is likely to be taken as a "why pick on me, lots of other people are doing it." Basically, what I'm saying is "If the poster seems to be a newbie then CC them, maybe with a note saying if they are subscribed then ask to drop the CC. Obviously, this doesn't apply to regular posters, or posters with an @debian.org address, etc." -- Chris. == I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen F Roberts -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:15:58PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > Chris Bannister wrote: > > It makes more sense to either not allow posting unless subscribed or > > have an open list but cc unless they explicitly request not be cc'd. > > > > Can anyone explain why the current policy is sane? > > Maybe someone is in an 'emergency' or 'on the road' in an internet cafe > without access to their regular e-mail account. It's nice if you can > post under those circumstances. Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the point in not CCing on a closed list. > It is also not really necessary to subscribe in order to read the > replies; they are available (after a short delay) at > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2008/11/threads.html And newbies know about that? > Hope this explains, Sorry, it doesn't explain why CCing is "discouraged" on an open list. -- Chris. == I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen F Roberts -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:48:57AM +0100, s. keeling wrote: > On the other hand, there's a world full of Windows users out there who > know that top-posting is the right way to reply. It's normally the minority of people which get it right, therefore if you are in the majority you are probably wrong. -- Chris. == I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen F Roberts -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Wed,19.Nov.08, 14:02:37, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > On Wednesday 19 November 2008, Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote about 'Re: Q: List Policy': > >On Mon,17.Nov.08, 22:03:20, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > >> It would be nice for the list to auto-respond to any HTML posting with > > > >I'm pretty sure you won't see something like this from Debian lists. > > :( Why not? Some enforcement of List Policy wouldn't be bad. Maybe, but the autoresponder stuff is just not The Debian Way (tm). Besides, the regular threads like this one already serve as reminder for those who would care. The people who don't care about the CoC would just ignore (or filter out) the auto-responder. > >> As far as the CC's, I suppose I'll just have to admonish those > >> individuals directly. (It would be nigh impossible for the list > >> software to know the the poster had requested a CC or not.) I can > >> always killfile them if they get too annoying. ;) > > > >This works for me (with maildrop): > > > ># bad replies from lists > >if (/^(To|Cc):.*lists.debian.org/:h && > > /^(To|Cc):[EMAIL PROTECTED]/:h) to Maildir/.Junk/ > > Hard to apply list-wide since sometimes a CC *is* requested. My point was > that the list software can't tell if the poster requested a CC or not. Not list-wide, this is for personal use only. > Also, I'm not subscribed to every Debian list, and this rule might throw > away something that was sent to both me and a list I'm not on. It's not really thrown away, it just goes to a special folder and makes the repeated "offenders" easier to spot ;) Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q: List Policy
On Wednesday 19 November 2008, Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: Q: List Policy': >On Mon,17.Nov.08, 22:03:20, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> It would be nice for the list to auto-respond to any HTML posting with > >I'm pretty sure you won't see something like this from Debian lists. :( Why not? Some enforcement of List Policy wouldn't be bad. >> As far as the CC's, I suppose I'll just have to admonish those >> individuals directly. (It would be nigh impossible for the list >> software to know the the poster had requested a CC or not.) I can >> always killfile them if they get too annoying. ;) > >This works for me (with maildrop): > ># bad replies from lists >if (/^(To|Cc):.*lists.debian.org/:h && > /^(To|Cc):[EMAIL PROTECTED]/:h) to Maildir/.Junk/ Hard to apply list-wide since sometimes a CC *is* requested. My point was that the list software can't tell if the poster requested a CC or not. Also, I'm not subscribed to every Debian list, and this rule might throw away something that was sent to both me and a list I'm not on. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Q: List Policy
On Mon,17.Nov.08, 22:03:20, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > Well, there has to be some punishment for not following the rules, or > people won't follow them, right? > > It would be nice for the list to auto-respond to any HTML posting with > a "You've posted HTML, which is against list policy, please configure your > client to send plain text email." message. Following that notice would be > instruction on how to do this for various clients, and instructions for > who to email with corrections if the instructions are wrong or incomplete. I'm pretty sure you won't see something like this from Debian lists. > As far as the CC's, I suppose I'll just have to admonish those individuals > directly. (It would be nigh impossible for the list software to know the > the poster had requested a CC or not.) I can always killfile them if they > get too annoying. ;) This works for me (with maildrop): # bad replies from lists if (/^(To|Cc):.*lists.debian.org/:h && /^(To|Cc):[EMAIL PROTECTED]/:h) to Maildir/.Junk/ Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q: List Policy
On 11/19/08 01:54, Steve Lamb wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: But since most users (and probably developers) of Tbird are on Windows, they just don't have the same ethos as old-time midrange admins, and so I'm just thanking $DEITY that the plugin system exists. Even then there is a huge barrier to entry. I would love to write a plugin for TBird which implements buttons from PMMail/2 (circa 1995). Ah, OS/2. In it's day, it was the perfect synthesis of text and GUI. PM was truly object-oriented in such a useful manner, and ran *well* on an 8MB 486DX33. Modern GUIs could learn a lot from it... Delete-and-Next, Delete-and-Previous, Delete-And close. Then the same choices for move and copy. They made reading messages in a separate window sane and haven't been seen since. I've tried but TBird's plugin architecture isn't documented as a sole entity. There is no document, that I am aware of, that describes how to write a TBird plugin which doesn't start with "To set up your Firefox development environment..." Pisses me off to no end. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Ron Johnson wrote: > But since most users (and probably developers) of Tbird are on Windows, > they just don't have the same ethos as old-time midrange admins, and so > I'm just thanking $DEITY that the plugin system exists. Even then there is a huge barrier to entry. I would love to write a plugin for TBird which implements buttons from PMMail/2 (circa 1995). Delete-and-Next, Delete-and-Previous, Delete-And close. Then the same choices for move and copy. They made reading messages in a separate window sane and haven't been seen since. I've tried but TBird's plugin architecture isn't documented as a sole entity. There is no document, that I am aware of, that describes how to write a TBird plugin which doesn't start with "To set up your Firefox development environment..." Pisses me off to no end. -- Steve C. Lamb | But who can decide what they dream PGP Key: 1FC01004 | and dream I do ---+- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Q: List Policy
s. keeling wrote: > Are we still waiting for killfiles in Mozilla (et al)'s nntp clients, > or did they finally get around to that? Heck if I know. I never used killfiles. Slrn + scoring was all I needed. Yeah, yeah, - is killing but it isn't confined to a single killfile. :D -- Steve C. Lamb | But who can decide what they dream PGP Key: 1FC01004 | and dream I do ---+- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Q: List Policy
François Cerbelle wrote: > Yes, there is some text... But it is acceptable because it did not alter > neither what I wrote, nor the meaning of what I wrote. It alters the contents of your message which is exactly what the post I was replying to said should not happen. Now you're providing exceptions to that blanket rule. Of course my point is that altering the content is acceptable under certain situations and some people find altering reply-to in certain situations acceptable whereas you do not. That, of course, does not make your view any more valid than theirs nor your blanket statement at all valid. -- Steve C. Lamb | But who can decide what they dream PGP Key: 1FC01004 | and dream I do ---+- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)
On 11/18/08 21:03, s. keeling wrote: Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: [snip] Also, it might (or might not...) be a Tbird bug that it doesn't show the UNSUBSCRIBE signature. Tbird. I see the list sig also. Silly man!!! Mozila apps have no bugs!!! -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)
On Tuesday 18 November 2008, "S.D.Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)': >On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:53:47 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. in >gmane.linux.debian.user wrote: >> On Tuesday 18 November 2008, "S.D.Allen" >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: Here's >> something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)': >>>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:38:36 -0600, Ron Johnson in >>> gmane.linux.debian.user wrote: >>>> The only issue I see with it is that each line ends with a "=3D20" >>>> and that text MUAs might not filter that part out. >>> >>>Yes I agree. It doesn't here on slrn. It would be nice if the quoted >>>printable could be turned off for this list. Boyd ... 8) >> >> Um, no. Quoted-printable and UUENCODE are the only standard way to >> include >> 8-bit characters in email and UUENCODE isn't MIME-compliant. >> >> I'm not fine with >> not being able to send non-ASCII characters to the list. > >Just curious why not UTF-8 as a charset then ? You'd still need quoted-printable for all the bytes with the 8th bit set that are part of UTF-8 encoded characters. Quoted-printable gets around the need for 7-bit cleanness (required by relevant e-mail standards) -- no bytes in the range 128-255. UTF-8 actually ascribes *meaning* to sequences of bytes in that range, mapping the to Unicode code points 128 and above. I do have my client use UTF-8 as needed. Also, quoted-printable also allows whitespace to end a line, which is required for the text/plain MIME type option format=flowed. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:53:47 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. in gmane.linux.debian.user wrote: > --nextPart1772980.aT8pGrQ5Ap > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Content-Disposition: inline > > On Tuesday 18 November 2008, "S.D.Allen"=20 ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: Here's something=20 > interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)': >>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:38:36 -0600, Ron Johnson in gmane.linux.debian.user= >=20 > wrote: >>> The only issue I see with it is that each line ends with a "=3D20" and >>> that text MUAs might not filter that part out. >> >>Yes I agree. It doesn't here on slrn. It would be nice if the quoted >>printable could be turned off for this list. Boyd ... 8) > > Um, no. Quoted-printable and UUENCODE are the only standard way to include= >=20 > 8-bit characters in email and UUENCODE isn't MIME-compliant. > > I'm fine switching my messages to text/plain vs. multipart/signed by not=20 > signing them or using an inline signature. I'm not fine with not being=20 > able to send non-ASCII characters to the list. Just curious why not UTF-8 as a charset then ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy (ot)
Alex Samad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:27:47AM +0100, s. keeling wrote: > > Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:30:04AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote: > > [snip] > > > I'm not subscribed, and haven't been for years. I read the list in > > the nntp "mail to news gateway" (cf. Usenet). Don't assume people are > > only going to do it in the ways you know of. There may be/likely are > > many other ways. > > Sounds like an interesting way to look at a mailing list, might have to > give it a go, any con's or gotcha's [EMAIL PROTECTED] lists.bofh.it # gatekeeper of the MTN gateway; they can be difficult. # Until you configure your MTA correctly, you'll get nowhere. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*)http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292 - -http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.htmlPlease, don't Cc: me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)
Ken Irving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:43:49AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On 11/18/08 03:35, Ken Irving wrote: > > [snip] > >> also for some MIME forms if the last one is visible. The list software > >> does not change, mung, or otherwise mess with message bodies other than > > > > Well it should! > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=345283 > > It looks to me like the issue was dropped because the list admins were > satisfied that the debian lists follow RFC 2369 and put the unsubscribe > url in the headers. A procmail recipe was offered to grab the multipart > boundary string from the headers and use it to terminate the last MIME Drat, that leaves out those reading via mail to news gateway linux.debian.user. Drat. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*)http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292 - -http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.htmlPlease, don't Cc: me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 11/18/08 01:19, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > On Monday 17 November 2008, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > about 'Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)': > >> Your email, though text, is really a quoted-printable attachment. > >> Tbird displays it as text, but eliminates the pgp-signature and the > >> list-supplied signature. And (sorry) looks ugly in slrn. > > Yes, that's the S/MIME standard for signed email. Well, the extra > > signature at the bottom isn't, but that's not part of the message I send > > the mailing list. > > > > AFAIK, there's no List Policy against 7-bit clean mail (which requires > > either UUENCODE or quoted-printable [or bans all non-ASCI characters]) or > > cryptographic signatures of a reasonable (and fixed no less!) length. > > The only issue I see with it is that each line ends with a "=20" and > that text MUAs might not filter that part out. I see that also (slrn). > Also, it might (or might not...) be a Tbird bug that it doesn't show > the UNSUBSCRIBE signature. Tbird. I see the list sig also. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*)http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292 - -http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.htmlPlease, don't Cc: me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I'm fine switching my messages to text/plain vs. multipart/signed by not=20 > signing them or using an inline signature. I'm not fine with not being=20 > able to send non-ASCII characters to the list. What? Why? It's an email mailing list. Yeah, yeah, utf-8 and all that, but software should translate that for us, yes? The list is "text"? Or do I misunderstand? -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*)http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292 - -http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.htmlPlease, don't Cc: me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:20:13PM EST, s. keeling wrote: > Chris Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Patrick Wiseman a écrit : > > > ... > > > > > > And why do you send message in text+HTML format to this list ? ;-) > > > > Yeah .. it took me a while to figure out how I could get mutt to display > > the text/plain version rather than the text/html version which ended up > > a total mess with no indentation.. no ">"'s and naturally no coloring. > > Please elaborate? :-) (1) http://www.geocities.com/fcky1000/fckx/before.png (2) http://www.geocities.com/fcky1000/fckx/after.png When hitting in mutt's index display I was getting some rather messy rendering of the html version of the message via "urlview->elinks" as demonstrated by the "before" (1) screenshot above. I had lived with this annoyance for ages but decided it was time to do something about it. I googled for a while and not coming up with anything useful, I posted to the mutt mailing list and s/o knew immediately what I was talking about and advised I add the following to my .muttrc: alternative_order text/plain text/html .. and read the fine manual, of course. This apparently did the trick -- see the (2) screenshot. Now I can tell right away who says what, thanks to the ">"'s and ">>"'s and everything is correctly indented.. icing on the cake, my "coloring" choices -- more like different shades of gray -- make it easier to read through the message at a glance. Now that I had the proper keyword .. "alternative_order" I googled further and found some interesting posts that give me a feeling that there's more to it than what I implemented .. but since it works for me so far, I decided that I have no time to become a mail expert just now and will keep it on the back burner to investigate further is other messages start causing trouble. Sorry about my earlier post being cryptic. Thanks! CJ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy (ot)
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:27:47AM +0100, s. keeling wrote: > Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:30:04AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote: [snip] > > I'm not subscribed, and haven't been for years. I read the list in > the nntp "mail to news gateway" (cf. Usenet). Don't assume people are > only going to do it in the ways you know of. There may be/likely are > many other ways. Sounds like an interesting way to look at a mailing list, might have to give it a go, any con's or gotcha's > [snip] > -- "One thing is clear, is relations between America and Russia are good, and they're important that they be good." - George W. Bush 07/15/2006 Strelna, Russia signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)
On Tuesday 18 November 2008, "S.D.Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)': >On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:38:36 -0600, Ron Johnson in gmane.linux.debian.user wrote: >> The only issue I see with it is that each line ends with a "=20" and >> that text MUAs might not filter that part out. > >Yes I agree. It doesn't here on slrn. It would be nice if the quoted >printable could be turned off for this list. Boyd ... 8) Um, no. Quoted-printable and UUENCODE are the only standard way to include 8-bit characters in email and UUENCODE isn't MIME-compliant. I'm fine switching my messages to text/plain vs. multipart/signed by not signing them or using an inline signature. I'm not fine with not being able to send non-ASCII characters to the list. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:43:49AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 11/18/08 03:35, Ken Irving wrote: > [snip] >> also for some MIME forms if the last one is visible. The list software >> does not change, mung, or otherwise mess with message bodies other than > > Well it should! http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=345283 It looks to me like the issue was dropped because the list admins were satisfied that the debian lists follow RFC 2369 and put the unsubscribe url in the headers. A procmail recipe was offered to grab the multipart boundary string from the headers and use it to terminate the last MIME section, then add the unsubscribe footer. Ken -- Ken Irving -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Hi, Here is fact ... On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 01:43:53PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > I was fairly sure that the policy for this list, and most of the Debian > mailing lists was to NOT CC the poster in replies unless they requested > it. Is that correct? See http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct # When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon # copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be # copied. # If you want to complain to someone who sent you a carbon copy when you # did not ask for it, do it privately. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)
On 11/18/08 03:35, Ken Irving wrote: [snip] also for some MIME forms if the last one is visible. The list software does not change, mung, or otherwise mess with message bodies other than Well it should! -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:38:36AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 11/18/08 01:19, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> On Monday 17 November 2008, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >> about 'Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)': >>> Your email, though text, is really a quoted-printable attachment. >>> Tbird displays it as text, but eliminates the pgp-signature and the >>> list-supplied signature. >> >> Yes, that's the S/MIME standard for signed email. Well, the extra >> signature at the bottom isn't, but that's not part of the message I >> send the mailing list. >> >> AFAIK, there's no List Policy against 7-bit clean mail (which requires >> either UUENCODE or quoted-printable [or bans all non-ASCI characters]) >> or cryptographic signatures of a reasonable (and fixed no less!) >> length. >> >> That said, if the list would prefer I not sign my emails or use inline >> signatures, I can change that easily. > > The only issue I see with it is that each line ends with a "=20" and > that text MUAs might not filter that part out. > > Also, it might (or might not...) be a Tbird bug that it doesn't show the > UNSUBSCRIBE signature. This might be a long-standing issue with smartlist, where the signature is appended to the end of the message but may end up being hidden if the message is structured. It works fine for plain text messages, and maybe also for some MIME forms if the last one is visible. The list software does not change, mung, or otherwise mess with message bodies other than appending the optional stuff at the end, and it would have to jump through some hoops to work properly with MIME messages, e.g., at least terminate the last such section. Or so I dimly recall... Ken -- Ken Irving, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:38:36 -0600, Ron Johnson in gmane.linux.debian.user wrote: > The only issue I see with it is that each line ends with a "=20" and > that text MUAs might not filter that part out. Yes I agree. It doesn't here on slrn. It would be nice if the quoted printable could be turned off for this list. Boyd ... 8) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)
On 11/18/08 01:19, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Monday 17 November 2008, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)': Your email, though text, is really a quoted-printable attachment. Tbird displays it as text, but eliminates the pgp-signature and the list-supplied signature. Yes, that's the S/MIME standard for signed email. Well, the extra signature at the bottom isn't, but that's not part of the message I send the mailing list. AFAIK, there's no List Policy against 7-bit clean mail (which requires either UUENCODE or quoted-printable [or bans all non-ASCI characters]) or cryptographic signatures of a reasonable (and fixed no less!) length. That said, if the list would prefer I not sign my emails or use inline signatures, I can change that easily. The only issue I see with it is that each line ends with a "=20" and that text MUAs might not filter that part out. Also, it might (or might not...) be a Tbird bug that it doesn't show the UNSUBSCRIBE signature. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)
On Monday 17 November 2008, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)': >Your email, though text, is really a quoted-printable attachment. >Tbird displays it as text, but eliminates the pgp-signature and the >list-supplied signature. Yes, that's the S/MIME standard for signed email. Well, the extra signature at the bottom isn't, but that's not part of the message I send the mailing list. AFAIK, there's no List Policy against 7-bit clean mail (which requires either UUENCODE or quoted-printable [or bans all non-ASCI characters]) or cryptographic signatures of a reasonable (and fixed no less!) length. That said, if the list would prefer I not sign my emails or use inline signatures, I can change that easily. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)
On 11/17/08 21:50, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Monday 17 November 2008, "s. keeling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: Q: List Policy': Hmm, tell that to the likes of Dan C in alt.os.linux.slackware, who b*tch*s about people like you whose posts contain *two* sets of sig-dashes; yours, and the list's. Notice, slrn helpfully made your sig part of the body, trimming the list's. :-) I wish it would trim those extra exclamation marks too. Pretty sure slrn is at fault there. ISTR the guideline being that the signature starts at the first "\n-- \n" in the message. Boyd, Your email, though text, is really a quoted-printable attachment. Tbird displays it as text, but eliminates the pgp-signature and the list-supplied signature. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On 11/17/08 20:31, s. keeling wrote: Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Ron Johnson wrote: It isn't that difficult to create Reply-to-List functionality. Tell that to the TBird developers. We're going on, what, 4 years now= and counting? :( Are we still waiting for killfiles in Mozilla (et al)'s nntp clients, or did they finally get around to that? Hoestly, sometimes I think these deficiencies are politically motivated. *Somebody* at Mozilla certainly has a bug up their ass about RTL and killfile... But since most users (and probably developers) of Tbird are on Windows, they just don't have the same ethos as old-time midrange admins, and so I'm just thanking $DEITY that the plugin system exists. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On 11/17/08 22:32, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: [snip] Plus, even if the list policy is outdated, it is still *list policy* and should be followed until changed. By not listing any punishments for infractions, I think that "they" specifically meant the "Code of conduct" to be followed on the honor system. But it was written long ago, when the only people who used Debian were Real Geeks, who would have just naturally followed most of the CoC anyway. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Monday 17 November 2008, "Patrick Wiseman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: Q: List Policy': >I used to be rabid about plain text emails I'm not a rabid as I used to be; I'll even open the HTML from time to time. >Are there >clients sending emails which don't offer the alternative content >(plain or html)? I know gmail sends both, and I think it does so in a >standards-compliant way. Some people are still on some form of metered Internet access and would prefer no to have to pay to receive the same data twice, especially since the HTML is generally significantly larger and less useful. Plus, even if the list policy is outdated, it is still *list policy* and should be followed until changed. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Q: List Policy
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday 17 November 2008, "s. keeling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > about 'Re: Q: List Policy': > >Perhaps we need one of the listmasters to enforce the usage > >guidelines? Post HTML or Cc: too often, and ... > > > >Nah. Dumb idea. > > Well, there has to be some punishment for not following the rules, or > people won't follow them, right? > > It would be nice for the list to auto-respond to any HTML posting with > a "You've posted HTML, which is against list policy, please configure your > client to send plain text email." message. Following that notice would be > instruction on how to do this for various clients, and instructions for > who to email with corrections if the instructions are wrong or incomplete. I used to be rabid about plain text emails (and still use pine), but are there really email clients out there which can't handle multi-content emails (pine now deals OK with html mail)? Are there clients sending emails which don't offer the alternative content (plain or html)? I know gmail sends both, and I think it does so in a standards-compliant way. I think this may be a battle lost. Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Monday 17 November 2008, "s. keeling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: Q: List Policy': >Perhaps we need one of the listmasters to enforce the usage >guidelines? Post HTML or Cc: too often, and ... > >Nah. Dumb idea. Well, there has to be some punishment for not following the rules, or people won't follow them, right? It would be nice for the list to auto-respond to any HTML posting with a "You've posted HTML, which is against list policy, please configure your client to send plain text email." message. Following that notice would be instruction on how to do this for various clients, and instructions for who to email with corrections if the instructions are wrong or incomplete. As far as the CC's, I suppose I'll just have to admonish those individuals directly. (It would be nigh impossible for the list software to know the the poster had requested a CC or not.) I can always killfile them if they get too annoying. ;) -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Q: List Policy
On Monday 17 November 2008, "s. keeling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: Q: List Policy': >Hmm, tell that to the likes of Dan C in alt.os.linux.slackware, who >b*tch*s about people like you whose posts contain *two* sets of >sig-dashes; yours, and the list's. Notice, slrn helpfully made your >sig part of the body, trimming the list's. :-) I wish it would trim >those extra exclamation marks too. Pretty sure slrn is at fault there. ISTR the guideline being that the signature starts at the first "\n-- \n" in the message. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Q: List Policy
Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:30:04AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote: > > makes this mistake, though. And I seem to remember a few posts where it > > was brought up that some users who post are not subscribed. So, go > > figure. > > Catch 22 -- if they are not subscribed they will not be able to read > any .sig file asking to be cc'd if not subscribed. Also they will not > rec any replies if not subscribed. :( I'm not sure I understand that. Tangentially, I notice the web interface to the archives strips/doesn't add in the first place, the list .sig to posts archived there. On the other hand, it explicitly splits the reply-to function into reply-to-list, to poster-on-list, and to poster-off-list, which I think is nice. > It makes more sense to either not allow posting unless subscribed > or have an open list but cc unless they explicitly request not be > cc'd. I'm not subscribed, and haven't been for years. I read the list in the nntp "mail to news gateway" (cf. Usenet). Don't assume people are only going to do it in the ways you know of. There may be/likely are many other ways. > Can anyone explain why the current policy is sane? History. It makes sense if you know why the choices were made, a long time ago, using much different software, and much different user mores. With current (read "possibly compliant") software, it's a shot in the dark, requiring much research to find software that either works as it should or works as *it* thinks is best. I prefer the former. Back on topic, I've been using the .sig below for years, and the "Please don't Cc: me" has also been ignored for years. Perhaps we need one of the listmasters to enforce the usage guidelines? Post HTML or Cc: too often, and ... Nah. Dumb idea. Love your .sig, btw. :-) -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*)http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292 - -http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.htmlPlease, don't Cc: me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 11/17/08 00:33, François Cerbelle wrote: > > Steve Lamb a écrit : > >> > >> Really? You believe that? *looks at the footer appended to > >> every message* Then, u, a header is the least of your > >> concerns. I look forward to your Don Quixote quest there, bub. > > > > Yes, there is some text... But it is acceptable because it did not alter > > neither what I wrote, nor the meaning of what I wrote. > > Besides, it is explicitly marked by the "-- " as a signature. > > > If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! > > Hmm, tell that to the likes of Dan C in alt.os.linux.slackware, who b*tch*s about people like you whose posts contain *two* sets of sig-dashes; yours, and the list's. Notice, slrn helpfully made your sig part of the body, trimming the list's. :-) I wish it would trim those extra exclamation marks too. This problem is an education issue, no more. Developers/implementors ought to learn about what they're doing before they do it, shouldn't be arrogant about *knowing* they have a better way, and the rest of us need to tolerate and nudge infringers toward the One True Way. Or, at least I think that's how it's supposed to work. On the other hand, there's a world full of Windows users out there who know that top-posting is the right way to reply. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*)http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292 - -http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.htmlPlease, don't Cc: me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Ron Johnson wrote: > > It isn't that difficult to create Reply-to-List functionality. > > Tell that to the TBird developers. We're going on, what, 4 years now= > and > counting? :( Are we still waiting for killfiles in Mozilla (et al)'s nntp clients, or did they finally get around to that? Hoestly, sometimes I think these deficiencies are politically motivated. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*)http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292 - -http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.htmlPlease, don't Cc: me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Chris Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 02:27:28PM EST, François Cerbelle wrote: > > Patrick Wiseman a écrit : > > ... > > > > And why do you send message in text+HTML format to this list ? ;-) > > Yeah .. it took me a while to figure out how I could get mutt to display > the text/plain version rather than the text/html version which ended up > a total mess with no indentation.. no ">"'s and naturally no coloring. Please elaborate? :-) -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*)http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292 - -http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.htmlPlease, don't Cc: me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Bob Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:05:36 -0600, Ron Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > > On 11/16/08 00:38, Celejar wrote: > >> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:33:43 -0600 > >> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> The most common MUAs (and all webmail) don't allow Reply-to to be > >>> set to anything other than what the application thinks it should be. > >> > >> Do you mean that MUAs don't allow the sender to set a custom Reply-to? > >> Sylpheed does. > > > > As does Mutt, and probably Evolution. But not Tbird, and certainly not > > gmail. Don't know about KMail. > > I'm not sure if this is relevant to this discussion, but using mutt in > its "lists friendly mode", i.e. by using, by default, "L" to post to a > list, there is no "Reply-To:" header added, but rather a > "Mail-Followup-To:" one instead. How universally this is honoured by > other email clients is another matter, of course. "L" doesn't control what others do with your reply to the list. mutt has no control over that, as you point out. It does control what your choice to reply does. We could be done with this entire discussion if we'd just recommend subscribers use slrn and read the list in nntp://[mumble]/lists.debian.user You *can* reply to sender in slrn, but that's not the default behaviour. :-) -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*)http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292 - -http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.htmlPlease, don't Cc: me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Patrick Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > --=_Part_24413_25996402.1226805705201 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Disposition: inline > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 11/15/08 13:43, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > > >> I was fairly sure that the policy for this list, and most of the Debian > >> mailing lists was to NOT CC the poster in replies unless they requested it. > >> Is that correct? > > > > Yup. > > > > I only ask because I've been getting a lot of CCs recently and I really, > > > > Gmail. It's Evil. > > How so? Well for one thing, I see: > --=_Part_24413_25996402.1226805705201 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Disposition: inline at the top of every/most gmail based posts, then another like that followed by an html version of the text reply. Thank you very much! Turn off HTML on replies. Please. > When I reply to an email to this list, gmail presumes I want to > reply to the sender. I simply change the return address to the list. I > manage several forums on which I set Reply-To to the forum address; gmail > respects that. If there's a problem here, it's not gmail. It's gmail's default behaviour that's infuriating. You may have learned your way around some of its ickyness, but not all. Gmail shouldn't have that stuff turned on by default. Email clients ought to have a Reply To List feature that works. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*)http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292 - -http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.htmlPlease, don't Cc: me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Bannister wrote: > It makes more sense to either not allow posting unless subscribed or > have an open list but cc unless they explicitly request not be cc'd. > > Can anyone explain why the current policy is sane? Maybe someone is in an 'emergency' or 'on the road' in an internet cafe without access to their regular e-mail account. It's nice if you can post under those circumstances. It is also not really necessary to subscribe in order to read the replies; they are available (after a short delay) at http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2008/11/threads.html etc. Hope this explains, Johannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkkhYH0ACgkQC1NzPRl9qEWqzACfSrK5T8v/akiwlV/odlCu2wPH Tb0An1Uh68NNMKoUymkKOW4Q+QVHksK/ =/8Tg -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:30:04AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote: > makes this mistake, though. And I seem to remember a few posts where it > was brought up that some users who post are not subscribed. So, go > figure. Catch 22 -- if they are not subscribed they will not be able to read any .sig file asking to be cc'd if not subscribed. Also they will not rec any replies if not subscribed. :( It makes more sense to either not allow posting unless subscribed or have an open list but cc unless they explicitly request not be cc'd. Can anyone explain why the current policy is sane? -- Chris. == I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen F Roberts -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On 11/17/08 00:33, François Cerbelle wrote: Steve Lamb a écrit : François Cerbelle wrote: A list should *NEVER* alter the contents of a message and the reply-to field *DOES BELONGS TO THE CONTENTS* of the message. Really? You believe that? *looks at the footer appended to every message* Then, u, a header is the least of your concerns. I look forward to your Don Quixote quest there, bub. Yes, there is some text... But it is acceptable because it did not alter neither what I wrote, nor the meaning of what I wrote. Besides, it is explicitly marked by the "-- " as a signature. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Steve Lamb a écrit : François Cerbelle wrote: A list should *NEVER* alter the contents of a message and the reply-to field *DOES BELONGS TO THE CONTENTS* of the message. Really? You believe that? *looks at the footer appended to every message* Then, u, a header is the least of your concerns. I look forward to your Don Quixote quest there, bub. Yes, there is some text... But it is acceptable because it did not alter neither what I wrote, nor the meaning of what I wrote. Fanfan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On 11/16/08 13:28, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: François Cerbelle wrote: A list should *NEVER* alter the contents of a message and the reply-to field *DOES BELONGS TO THE CONTENTS* of the message. What happens if one of the subscribers does want to have a reply on a specific address ? It is its right and the ListMaster do not have to impose its own choice here. It's the right of the list-owner to set reply policy. If the list's policy is that replies must be to the list - as many owners of community-style lists require - the subscriber can either go along with it or go away. That's also known as the "America, love it or leave it" argument, which is a fallacy. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On 11/16/08 17:53, Steve Lamb wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: According to the upstream website (and which I confirmed myself), using v0.3.0 with emails stored in IMAP kills Tbird as soon as you click on Replt-To-List. Actually here it doesn't kill TBird, it just doesn't work. At all. I found 0.2.0 on the addon site but it, too, doesn't work. Try the Mnenhy addon. IIRC, it provides some necessary data structures to replytolist. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
François Cerbelle wrote: > A list should *NEVER* alter the contents of a message and the reply-to > field *DOES BELONGS TO THE CONTENTS* of the message. Really? You believe that? *looks at the footer appended to every message* Then, u, a header is the least of your concerns. I look forward to your Don Quixote quest there, bub. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:16:03PM EST, Patrick Wiseman wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Chris Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 02:27:28PM EST, François Cerbelle wrote: > >> Patrick Wiseman a écrit : > >> ... > >> > >> And why do you send message in text+HTML format to this list ? ;-) > > > > Yeah .. it took me a while to figure out how I could get mutt to display > > the text/plain version rather than the text/html version which ended up > > a total mess with no indentation.. no ">"'s and naturally no coloring. > > > > I think he's not doing it on purpose but rather relying on his mailer's > > default.. > > Yes - my apologies - it's the gmail default. (And to think I'm still > using pine for other email!) That's what I suspected from the headers. I don't use gmail .. only as a POP3 server that is.. so I don't know if there's anyway I can change that default. Not that it bothers me .. I got some help on the mutt list and I finally fixed that particular annoyance today. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Ron Johnson wrote: > According to the upstream website (and which I confirmed myself), using > v0.3.0 with emails stored in IMAP kills Tbird as soon as you click on > Replt-To-List. Actually here it doesn't kill TBird, it just doesn't work. At all. I found 0.2.0 on the addon site but it, too, doesn't work. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Chris Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 02:27:28PM EST, François Cerbelle wrote: >> Patrick Wiseman a écrit : >> ... >> >> And why do you send message in text+HTML format to this list ? ;-) > > Yeah .. it took me a while to figure out how I could get mutt to display > the text/plain version rather than the text/html version which ended up > a total mess with no indentation.. no ">"'s and naturally no coloring. > > I think he's not doing it on purpose but rather relying on his mailer's > default.. Yes - my apologies - it's the gmail default. (And to think I'm still using pine for other email!) Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 02:23:12PM EST, François Cerbelle wrote: > Patrick Wiseman a écrit : > >How so? When I reply to an email to this list, gmail presumes I want to > >reply to the sender. I simply change the return address to the list. I > >manage several forums on which I set Reply-To to the forum address; > >gmail respects that. If there's a problem here, it's not gmail. > > A list should *NEVER* alter the contents of a message and the reply-to > field *DOES BELONGS TO THE CONTENTS* of the message. I also thought that one should _never_ write anything in capital letters either .. :-) [..] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 02:27:28PM EST, François Cerbelle wrote: > Patrick Wiseman a écrit : > ... > > And why do you send message in text+HTML format to this list ? ;-) Yeah .. it took me a while to figure out how I could get mutt to display the text/plain version rather than the text/html version which ended up a total mess with no indentation.. no ">"'s and naturally no coloring. I think he's not doing it on purpose but rather relying on his mailer's default.. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:05:36 -0600, Ron Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On 11/16/08 00:38, Celejar wrote: >> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:33:43 -0600 >> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> ... >> >>> The most common MUAs (and all webmail) don't allow Reply-to to be >>> set to anything other than what the application thinks it should be. >> >> Do you mean that MUAs don't allow the sender to set a custom Reply-to? >> Sylpheed does. > > As does Mutt, and probably Evolution. But not Tbird, and certainly not > gmail. Don't know about KMail. I'm not sure if this is relevant to this discussion, but using mutt in its "lists friendly mode", i.e. by using, by default, "L" to post to a list, there is no "Reply-To:" header added, but rather a "Mail-Followup-To:" one instead. How universally this is honoured by other email clients is another matter, of course. -- Bob Cox. Stoke Gifford, near Bristol, UK. Debian on the NSLU2: http://bobcox.com/slug/ Registered user #445000 with the Linux Counter - http://counter.li.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Roger B.A. Klorese a écrit : It's the right of the list-owner to set reply policy. If the list's policy is that replies must be to the list - as many owners of community-style lists require - the subscriber can either go along with it or go away. What would you think if the listmaster decides to change automatically the content of your message (ie replacing some words or reformating the contents) ? You certainly would think that it is not normal and you would be right. It is OK to say "DOC attachement are forbidden" and to reject the messages containing a DOC attachment (or eventually to drop the attachment), but not to *ALTER* the message, enforcing a value which belongs strictly to the user. Fanfan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
François Cerbelle wrote: A list should *NEVER* alter the contents of a message and the reply-to field *DOES BELONGS TO THE CONTENTS* of the message. What happens if one of the subscribers does want to have a reply on a specific address ? It is its right and the ListMaster do not have to impose its own choice here. It's the right of the list-owner to set reply policy. If the list's policy is that replies must be to the list - as many owners of community-style lists require - the subscriber can either go along with it or go away. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Patrick Wiseman a écrit : ... And why do you send message in text+HTML format to this list ? ;-) Fanfan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Patrick Wiseman a écrit : How so? When I reply to an email to this list, gmail presumes I want to reply to the sender. I simply change the return address to the list. I manage several forums on which I set Reply-To to the forum address; gmail respects that. If there's a problem here, it's not gmail. A list should *NEVER* alter the contents of a message and the reply-to field *DOES BELONGS TO THE CONTENTS* of the message. What happens if one of the subscribers does want to have a reply on a specific address ? It is its right and the ListMaster do not have to impose its own choice here. Fanfan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On 11/16/08 10:14, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: Of course. Which is why $SOMEONE wrote the Tbird replytolist plugin... Unfortunately, that plugin does not work, at least for me and other people that observed the same effect. It does not crash, the but reply-to-list button is always disabled. What version do you have? v0.2.1 works for me, but v0.2.0 did not. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
Ron Johnson wrote: > Of course. Which is why $SOMEONE wrote the Tbird replytolist plugin... > Unfortunately, that plugin does not work, at least for me and other people that observed the same effect. It does not crash, the but reply-to-list button is always disabled. -- He's a about half the size of the others. But he's got a chainsaw. Eduardo M KALINOWSKI [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://move.to/hpkb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On 11/16/08 04:36, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Sunday 16 November 2008 04:20, Ron Johnson wrote: The ability to set the Reply-to Address serves no purpose to someone subscribed to mailing lists, and wants to easily reply to the list. I find the easiest, mostly client-independent way to do that is to Reply-To-All and then remove the email addresses I don't want to send to. (Also works with impromptu mailing lists.) What as pain in the arse... However, the Debian lists use the established, standard List-* headers. If you client doesn't support them, please complain to the maintainer of your client. Of course. Which is why $SOMEONE wrote the Tbird replytolist plugin... (That may imply filing a Debian bug, but not against the mailing lists [infrastructure].) -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: List Policy
On 11/16/08 06:23, Steve Lamb wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: Webmail and popular MUAs like Tbird and Lookout make it difficult to follow the no-CC "rule". Someone, though, has thoughtfully written a replytolist plugin for Tbird/Icedove. Get v0.3.0 unless you use IMAP, which requires you to use v0.2.1. Huh, first time I ever saw that IMAP didn't work on v0.3.0 of the plugin. Maybe that's why it hasn't been working for me for, ohhh, about a year? :( According to the upstream website (and which I confirmed myself), using v0.3.0 with emails stored in IMAP kills Tbird as soon as you click on Replt-To-List. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]