Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Dan Scott wrote: > Oh dear $deity: > > Given the impossibility of elevating one personal preference to > universal satisfaction, would someone please step up and develop an > extension to the mailing list preference settings so that each > individual subscriber can set the reply-to behaviour to match their own > desired behaviour? Lists offer ACK / NOACK on a per-subscriber basis, > surely this is possible. Unfortunately, they're using the commercial LSoft Listserv product. For some reason, they only have a 1.8c User Manual (circa 1996), so you'll have to look at the List Owner's manual for available options: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8e/owner/owner.html#_Toc128537027 As you can see, there are no such options documented in the Listserv product. ... however, if you're using procmail for local mail delivery, you could rewrite the headers as they arrive, and strip the 'reply-to' header off: http://derickrethans.nl/the_entertainment_value_of_replyto_headers.php If procmail isn't the default for local mail delivery, and you're on a unix (or similar) system, you can adjust your .forward file to execute procmail. - Joe Hourcle
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
It's slow but you should be able to change your settings here, once you have a password: http://listserv.nd.edu/ It's actually been too slow once I get to a list for me to confirm. Eby On 4/2/07, Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Oh dear $deity: Given the impossibility of elevating one personal preference to universal satisfaction, would someone please step up and develop an extension to the mailing list preference settings so that each individual subscriber can set the reply-to behaviour to match their own desired behaviour? Lists offer ACK / NOACK on a per-subscriber basis, surely this is possible. Dan Scott Negotiating treaties for religious wars since 2007 -- Systems Librarian, Bibliothèque J.N. Desmarais Library Laurentian University / Université Laurentienne Phone: 705-675-1151 x3315 >>> On 30/03/2007 at 3:36 pm, Ed Summers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -0 > > There are strong religious arguments on both sides of this issue...and > they are both equally boring. > > //Ed
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
Oh dear $deity: Given the impossibility of elevating one personal preference to universal satisfaction, would someone please step up and develop an extension to the mailing list preference settings so that each individual subscriber can set the reply-to behaviour to match their own desired behaviour? Lists offer ACK / NOACK on a per-subscriber basis, surely this is possible. Dan Scott Negotiating treaties for religious wars since 2007 -- Systems Librarian, Bibliothèque J.N. Desmarais Library Laurentian University / Université Laurentienne Phone: 705-675-1151 x3315 >>> On 30/03/2007 at 3:36 pm, Ed Summers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -0 > > There are strong religious arguments on both sides of this issue...and > they are both equally boring. > > //Ed
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
> On Mar 30, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Daniel Chudnov wrote: > >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Ross Singer wrote: >> >>> Well that probably didn't need to go to the whole world, but there >>> you go. >> >> /me votes for turning off reply-to munging on this list. > > -1 - replies should go to lists. :) i know, i know, its a very > charged issue, but i feel strongly that an e-mail list is about > community and i can easily hit reply-to-sender in my mail interface > if i want to send something privately. and i am very aware that > others feel strongly on the opposite side of this issue. > -2 I agree with Erik, replies should default to the list. > Erik >
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
You know, ironically, I don't care that I sent the reply here. It just wasn't my intention. -Ross. On 3/30/07, Frumkin, Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Since I'm sitting in the Dallas airport, I thought I'd jump in and echo Ed's sentiment, but add some creativity... *snarky on* So, when did this list turn into web4lib? *snarky off* -- jaf - Original Message - From: Code for Libraries To: CODE4LIB@listserv.nd.edu Sent: Fri Mar 30 12:36:44 2007 Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services) -0 There are strong religious arguments on both sides of this issue...and they are both equally boring. //Ed
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
Since I'm sitting in the Dallas airport, I thought I'd jump in and echo Ed's sentiment, but add some creativity... *snarky on* So, when did this list turn into web4lib? *snarky off* -- jaf - Original Message - From: Code for Libraries To: CODE4LIB@listserv.nd.edu Sent: Fri Mar 30 12:36:44 2007 Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services) -0 There are strong religious arguments on both sides of this issue...and they are both equally boring. //Ed
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
/me withdraws his vote and recasts it for the great state of KeepEdsuNotBored!
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
+1 for both of these comments. -Original Message- From: Walter Lewis Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:49 PM Ed Summers wrote: > ...and they are both equally boring. edsu++ Walter who has managed to screw up no matter what the list settings
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
On 3/30/07, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: not true. click on the From and "Reply to Sender". And even without that, you have copy/paste, the great equalizer. Consider it a minor penalty for moving a public discussion into a private space. -Mike
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
Ed Summers wrote: There are strong religious arguments on both sides of this issue...and they are both equally boring. edsu++ Walter who has managed to screw up no matter what the list settings
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
-0 There are strong religious arguments on both sides of this issue...and they are both equally boring. //Ed
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
I wouldn't say harmful, unless you send sensitive information without checking. At that point I think it's actually email that's harmful, or anything without an undo. Neither option is ideal as someone will likely have to change who they are sending to at least some of the time. However, I think code4lib has mostly discussion that can be kept on-list and probably should be. I'd rather inconvenience the few unless there is compelling reason to inconvenience everyone. Eby On 3/30/07, Hilmar Lapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's not a charged issue, it's simply a harmful but entirely unnecessary practice. For a much more eloquent explanation, see for example http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Besides, not all email clients have a reply-to-sender feature (mine - Apple Mail - for example doesn't), but practically all have a reply- to-all feature. -hilmar On Mar 30, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote: > On Mar 30, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Daniel Chudnov wrote: > >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Ross Singer wrote: >> >>> Well that probably didn't need to go to the whole world, but there >>> you go. >> >> /me votes for turning off reply-to munging on this list. > > -1 - replies should go to lists. :) i know, i know, its a very > charged issue, but i feel strongly that an e-mail list is about > community and i can easily hit reply-to-sender in my mail interface > if i want to send something privately. and i am very aware that > others feel strongly on the opposite side of this issue. > >Erik -- === : Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at duke dot edu : ===
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
On Mar 30, 2007, at 3:08 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote: On Mar 30, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Hilmar Lapp wrote: It's not a charged issue, it's simply a harmful but entirely unnecessary practice. For a much more eloquent explanation, see for example http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html bah!reply-all sucks, it ends up duplicating mails unless you manually munge the sender list. First, I find identifying and deleting duplicate emails rather trivial than noticing it as an issue. Second, decent mailing list managers will do that for you, for example mailman. Besides, not all email clients have a reply-to-sender feature (mine - Apple Mail - for example doesn't), but practically all have a reply- to-all feature. not true. click on the From and "Reply to Sender". I'm a button feeder, sorry. Obscure features aren't obscure because they are meant for frequent and everyone's consumption. I'm also a huge fan of simplicity in life. Reply-to munging makes things difficult (or call it obscure) that ought to (and can) be very simply, whereas not making things even simpler that are already simple. Finally, I'm also too old to engage in an argument about whether the decision should be mine where a reply to an email that I receive should go to, or that of a mailing list administrator. I also feel fortunate that virtually all of the communities I interact with (no, I'm not a librarian) don't think that there's any debate about that question. -hilmar -- === : Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at duke dot edu : ===
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
On 3/30/07, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -1 - replies should go to lists. :) -1 to changing list behavior, +1 to Erik's comment. -Mike
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
On Mar 30, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Hilmar Lapp wrote: It's not a charged issue, it's simply a harmful but entirely unnecessary practice. For a much more eloquent explanation, see for example http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html bah!reply-all sucks, it ends up duplicating mails unless you manually munge the sender list. Besides, not all email clients have a reply-to-sender feature (mine - Apple Mail - for example doesn't), but practically all have a reply- to-all feature. not true. click on the From and "Reply to Sender". Erik
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
The problem of course is broken email clients lacking features. Hey, most email lists these days send messages out with a "list-id" header that would allow my email client to have a "Reply to list" function, as well as "Reply to Sender", and "Reply to all", all of which could function independently of the reply-to header. But my email client doesn't even have a 'reply to sender'. It has 'reply' which respects reply-to, and "reply to all"---which theoretically includes all addresses in to,from,cc,etc., but sometimes seems to insist on only including the reply-to address whether I like it or not! Sometimes the only way I can reply to the sender is to actually copy and paste the address manually! Ridiculous! Of course, if the email client had all the features I want, I don't know if the regular non-geek would use em. But I see enough people of varying levels of technological expertise doing the "send to list when I meant to send to individual" thing, often in really embarsessing ways, that I suspect a "reply to list" vs 'reply to function' feature would be high desired. Even better, how about some kind of obvious cue (color coding of message window?) to let you know which you are doing. Some usability testing is called for. Anyway, what were we talking about? Jonathan >>> Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/30/07 1:45 PM >>> On Mar 30, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Daniel Chudnov wrote: > On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Ross Singer wrote: > >> Well that probably didn't need to go to the whole world, but there >> you go. > > /me votes for turning off reply-to munging on this list. -1 - replies should go to lists. :) i know, i know, its a very charged issue, but i feel strongly that an e-mail list is about community and i can easily hit reply-to-sender in my mail interface if i want to send something privately. and i am very aware that others feel strongly on the opposite side of this issue. Erik
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
It's not a charged issue, it's simply a harmful but entirely unnecessary practice. For a much more eloquent explanation, see for example http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Besides, not all email clients have a reply-to-sender feature (mine - Apple Mail - for example doesn't), but practically all have a reply- to-all feature. -hilmar On Mar 30, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote: On Mar 30, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Daniel Chudnov wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Ross Singer wrote: Well that probably didn't need to go to the whole world, but there you go. /me votes for turning off reply-to munging on this list. -1 - replies should go to lists. :) i know, i know, its a very charged issue, but i feel strongly that an e-mail list is about community and i can easily hit reply-to-sender in my mail interface if i want to send something privately. and i am very aware that others feel strongly on the opposite side of this issue. Erik -- === : Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at duke dot edu : ===
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
/me votes to drop this list in Google Groups... -n On Mar 30, 2007, at 12:54 PM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote: turning_off_reply-to_munging_on_this_list-- -- Eric "List Owner" Morgan
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
turning_off_reply-to_munging_on_this_list-- -- Eric "List Owner" Morgan
Re: [CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
On Mar 30, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Daniel Chudnov wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Ross Singer wrote: Well that probably didn't need to go to the whole world, but there you go. /me votes for turning off reply-to munging on this list. -1 - replies should go to lists. :) i know, i know, its a very charged issue, but i feel strongly that an e-mail list is about community and i can easily hit reply-to-sender in my mail interface if i want to send something privately. and i am very aware that others feel strongly on the opposite side of this issue. Erik
[CODE4LIB] not munging reply-to (was Re: [CODE4LIB] E-Resource Access & Management Services)
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Ross Singer wrote: Well that probably didn't need to go to the whole world, but there you go. /me votes for turning off reply-to munging on this list.
