Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Michelle Konzack]

Sorry, for the late reply but found the message in the Spamfolder...

Am 2009-04-29 10:35:08, schrieb Giacomo A. Catenazzi:
> But you fail also on pragmatic level:
> a lot of discussions are stopped because of lack of CC:
> Take debian-legal.
>
> How a non-subscriber can follow discussion?
> How he can reply to a message (with correct headers?
> A copy-paste is far worse)
> I think you can answer right, now remove your debian hat and
> retry!

The solution would be if the list generate a Message-ID/Sender  Database
and then add automaticaly the previously user user to a reply if  he/she
is not subscribed to the  or in the .

Note:   I am not subsctibed ith THIS E-Mail because I  receive  THIS
E-Mail on my cell-phone and I  REALY  dislike  to  be  CC'ed
because it cost me very much money.

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant

-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
 Michelle Konzack
   Apt. 917
   50, rue de Soultz
Jabber linux4miche...@jabber.ccc.de   67100 Strasbourg/France
IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) Tel. DE: +49 177 9351947
ICQ #328449886Tel. FR: +33  6  61925193


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Magnus Holmgren]

On tisdagen den 28 april 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:04:05PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Many of the more popular MUAs on your list have this command already,
>
> Can you name any others apart from mutt that come with this by default?

Kmail is one.

-- 
Magnus Holmgrenholmg...@debian.org
Debian Developer 


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Miles Bader]

Ben Finney  writes:
>> You're arguing that a Reply-To header is "harmful" (not that I am
>> convinced)
>
> That field is very useful. What's harmful is mailing-list software
> munging that field, which is for the author to set and for nothing else
> to fiddle with.

Yup.   Reply-To is for the _original sender's_ use!

If mailing list software were to start setting Reply-To, what is it
supposed to do if it gets a message with Reply-To already set (by the
original sender)?  It could (1) overwrite the original Reply-To header,
breaking personal replies to the sender, or it could (2) refrain from
setting Reply-To for such messages, completely confusing the readers who
have become accustomed to depending on the mailing-list's setting.

I think there's no perfect solution to the general problem, because
there's too wide a variety of MUAs in use, which support different
feature sets.  But it's much better to get "duplicate" messages in some
cases than to break things in a way that leads to _lost_ messages.

My experience is that in practice, it's not such a huge problem anyway;
a combination of MUA list-followup commands + Mail-Followup-To: headers
+ MUA duplicate suppression seems to keep duplicates in check reasonably
well...

-Miles

-- 
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten.  [George Carlin]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Darren Salt]

I demand that Noah Slater may or may not have written...

[snip; in reply to Brett Parker]
> Considering that we're discussing on a mailing list, it's reasonable to
> assume that the common case is replying to the list. Why optimise for, what
> is surely by definition, the uncommon case?

Why *break* the uncommon case by adding/replacing (abusing) Reply-To?

Anyway, reply-to-list is a followup function (or, at least, it is such in all
news/mail software which I've used with mailing lists).

[snip]
-- 
| Darren Salt| linux or ds at  | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + RIPA NOTICE: NO CONSENT GIVEN FOR INTERCEPTION OF MESSAGE TRANSMISSION

"He taught us drawing, stretching, and fainting in coils."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Adeodato Simó]

+ Andrei Popescu (Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:56:29 +0300):

> On Wed,29.Apr.09, 14:27:45, Darren Salt wrote:
> > The list management software, OTOH, can [add] a Mail-Followup-To
> > header, if one is not already present, containing the list address
> > and, if the sender is not subscribed, his address.

> This could be very annoying for people reading the list via gmane, 
> googlegroups or just the archives.

They can add a Mail-Followup-To themselves indicating they don't wish
for a copy, and that will be respected.

Regarding Darren's proposal (see above), I had exactly the same idea
myself, and thought of formally proposing it to listmaster. However, I
don't feel inclined to defend it in front of those who will disagree, so
I'll limit my pursuit to Bcc'ing this message to listmaster.

One would have to investigate what's the actual behavior of different
MUAs with respect the M-F-T header. And please, do not reply to this
mail to say M-F-T makes baby Jesus cry or rapes babies or whatever.

Cheers,

-- 
- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
-- Rory and Lorelai


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Andrei Popescu]

On Wed,29.Apr.09, 14:27:45, Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Ben Finney may or may not have written...
> 
> [snip]
> > If someone writes a message to a list, but doesn't arrange to read messages
> > from that list, I don't think we can expect software to automatically
> > figure out that they would nevertheless like to receive those messages.
> 
> We certainly can't expect MUAs to do so. The list management software, OTOH,
> can (up to a point) by adding a Mail-Followup-To header, if one is not
> already present, containing the list address and, if the sender is not
> subscribed, his address.

This could be very annoying for people reading the list via gmane, 
googlegroups or just the archives.

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Darren Salt]

I demand that Ben Finney may or may not have written...

[snip]
> If someone writes a message to a list, but doesn't arrange to read messages
> from that list, I don't think we can expect software to automatically
> figure out that they would nevertheless like to receive those messages.

We certainly can't expect MUAs to do so. The list management software, OTOH,
can (up to a point) by adding a Mail-Followup-To header, if one is not
already present, containing the list address and, if the sender is not
subscribed, his address.

> Either the sender needs to arrange to get those messages themselves (by
> subscribing to the list), or they will need to rely on people manually
> doing what the mailing list could do for them (sending replies individually
> to them).

It does still leave some people having to do that, but that's unavoidable.

-- 
| Darren Salt| linux or ds at  | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + Burn less waste. Use less packaging. Waste less. USE FEWER RESOURCES.

To iterate is human; to recurse, divine.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Noah Slater]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:11:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Personally, I'm fine with giving up on the no-cc policy.  Just about
> every other technical mailing list that I read tends to accumulate cc's
> until someone gets around to removing them, and mostly people just deal
> with a bit of grumbling.  I think it's fine to encourage people to trim
> useless cc's when they know the person to whom they're replying is on
> the list, but in terms of the available options and what we can make
> people's clients do by default, I think getting an extra copy of mail
> occasionally is the least bad outcome.  Currently, I think we go through
> too much emotional effort towards getting people to get rid of the cc's,
> with neither a lot of productive outcome nor a lot of potential for
> long-term improvement.  I bet we could do as well on elimination of cc's
> with a request (rather than a policy) and some pointers to configuration
> for common MUAs.

+1

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Ben Finney]

"Giacomo A. Catenazzi"  writes:

> Ben Finney wrote:
> > If someone writes a message to a list, but doesn't arrange to read
> > messages from that list, I don't think we can expect software to
> > automatically figure out that they would nevertheless like to
> > receive those messages.
> 
[…]

> But you fail also on pragmatic level:
> a lot of discussions are stopped because of lack of CC:
> Take debian-legal.
> 
> How a non-subscriber can follow discussion?
> How he can reply to a message (with correct headers?
[…]

That's covered by the part you also quoted:

> > Either the sender needs to arrange to get those messages themselves
> > (by subscribing to the list), or they will need to rely on people
> > manually doing what the mailing list could do for them (sending
> > replies individually to them).

My point is we can't expect this case to be automatically detected. If
people can't use the automatic means for following a discussion (and,
you rightly point out, sometimes that's not a feasible option), they
must then rely on manual means.

-- 
 \ “Please leave your values at the front desk.” —hotel, Paris |
  `\   |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Giacomo A. Catenazzi]

Ben Finney wrote:

Frank Lin PIAT  writes:


Note that at the moment, my MUA (Evolution) has three buttons. None
behave "correctly" for mailing lists:
Reply = Reply to sender only
Reply to all = reply to all previous sender and recipients
Reply to list = Reply to list only, dropping non-subscribed sender.


Those sound correct.

If someone writes a message to a list, but doesn't arrange to read
messages from that list, I don't think we can expect software to
automatically figure out that they would nevertheless like to receive
those messages.


you are going too far away.

The rationale was: lkml is a high traffic so CC: policy is good; but
we Debian doesn't have this large traffic mailing list.

Your comment fails on lkml (and large lists), where:
- nobody can read all mails
- sometime it is necessary to point mail to people
  (it is normal to add CC to relevant people, take as example:
  a bug in a keyboard driver, which after few tests it is discovered to
  be a scheduler problem: a scheduler developer would probably skip
  the thread (because of subject) if it was not included also on CC.

So your comment is to generic to be true. So add a "On Debian" clause,
but then... not all of our users are used on Debian things
(upstream for example, newbies, press, wannabe debian user, ...).

But you fail also on pragmatic level:
a lot of discussions are stopped because of lack of CC:
Take debian-legal.

How a non-subscriber can follow discussion?
How he can reply to a message (with correct headers?
A copy-paste is far worse)
I think you can answer right, now remove your debian hat and
retry!

From old gnu maintainer guide: it is far better to have more
mails about problems (but not useful) than not knowing that
there is a problem.
So people!!! take into account our users! not only the
super debianer (developers, supporter, maintainer, ...)

ciao
cate



Either the sender needs to arrange to get those messages themselves (by
subscribing to the list), or they will need to rely on people manually
doing what the mailing list could do for them (sending replies
individually to them).




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mardi 28 avril 2009 à 22:36 -0500, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
> Let's see ... another series of MUA-related standards documents, RFC
> 2045 and following (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions), was
> published in November 1996, close to 2 years before the one we're
> talking about.  Maybe it's just me, but it seems like 2 years ago, a
> MUA that didn't support MIME would have been laughed out of town.  Does
> that mean it's finally time to expect support for RFC 2369?

The same could be said of RFC2184… which Outlook still doesn’t
implement.

-- 
 .''`.  Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'   “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
  `- future understand things”  -- Jörg Schilling


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Ben Finney]

Frank Lin PIAT  writes:

> Note that at the moment, my MUA (Evolution) has three buttons. None
> behave "correctly" for mailing lists:
> Reply = Reply to sender only
> Reply to all = reply to all previous sender and recipients
> Reply to list = Reply to list only, dropping non-subscribed sender.

Those sound correct.

If someone writes a message to a list, but doesn't arrange to read
messages from that list, I don't think we can expect software to
automatically figure out that they would nevertheless like to receive
those messages.

Either the sender needs to arrange to get those messages themselves (by
subscribing to the list), or they will need to rely on people manually
doing what the mailing list could do for them (sending replies
individually to them).

-- 
 \ “There is more to life than increasing its speed.” —Mahatma |
  `\Gandhi |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Teemu Likonen]

On 2009-04-29 07:46 (+0200), Adeodato Simó wrote:

> + Frank Lin PIAT (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:54:07 +0200):
>> If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list:

>> If the sender of the previous mail was NOT subscribed to the list.

> And how does one (or their MUA) know which of these is the case?

Yes, nobody knows (nor cares to spend time to find out) who are
subscribed and who are not. People join and leave all the time. People
read mailing lists different ways: some receive email as a subscriber,
some read the list through a mail to news gateway (like Gmane[1]), some
join to a discussion through an email-based bug tracker or web-based
mailing-list archive. Sometimes mails are cross-posted to several lists.

My opinion is that "reply to all" is the only way to manage different
situations reliably and without endless discussion and hassle about the
MUA configuration, email standards, Reply-Tos, Mail-Followup-Tos etc.
While I think the CoC in Debian lists is "broken" I don't have problems
obeying it myself and configuring my MUA to handle it easily.

---
 1. http://gmane.org/
http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.general


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Andrei Popescu]

On Wed,29.Apr.09, 10:22:50, Brian May wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:19:04AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > How Mutt is able to detect  all mailing lists? The fields in the headers
> > only allow to detect the current mailing list.
> 
> You can define what are mailing lists using the "lists" and "subcribe"
> config options.

This does not help for the cross-posting case and I also found the 
"lists" and "subscribe" options to be useless. Mutt works just fine as 
long as you use 'L' to reply on mailing lists.

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Russ Allbery]

Frank Lin PIAT  writes:

> The whole m-l / CoC problem comes from the assumption that all MUAs
> have advanced features, that are properly configured, and end-user
> have good understanding of what to do.
>
> If we can't achieve a reasonable behavior using Joe User's
> two-buttons-MUA, then it's guaranteed that this discussion will come
> over again and again.

I agree.

Being able to send private replies is part of reasonable behavior.  A
system that makes private replies difficult is not reasonable, IMO.

> Note that at the moment, my MUA (Evolution) has three buttons. None
> behave "correctly" for mailing lists:
> Reply = Reply to sender only
> Reply to all = reply to all previous sender and recipients
> Reply to list = Reply to list only, dropping non-subscribed sender.
>
> Any improved proposal ? or Do we have to change the policy?

Personally, I'm fine with giving up on the no-cc policy.  Just about
every other technical mailing list that I read tends to accumulate cc's
until someone gets around to removing them, and mostly people just deal
with a bit of grumbling.  I think it's fine to encourage people to trim
useless cc's when they know the person to whom they're replying is on
the list, but in terms of the available options and what we can make
people's clients do by default, I think getting an extra copy of mail
occasionally is the least bad outcome.  Currently, I think we go through
too much emotional effort towards getting people to get rid of the cc's,
with neither a lot of productive outcome nor a lot of potential for
long-term improvement.  I bet we could do as well on elimination of cc's
with a request (rather than a policy) and some pointers to configuration
for common MUAs.

In my opinion, an occasional extra copy is significantly superior to
making private replies difficult or impossible or dropping the copy of
the message that contains the List-* headers.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Frank Lin PIAT]

On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 09:20 +1000, Brian May wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:54:07PM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> > If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list:
> >   If I select "Reply":
> > To=mailing-list
> > CC=
> 
> What if you are replying to a response to somebody who is not
> subscribed to the list?

in my mail, sender meant the sender of the previous mail.

> The emailer you are responding to may not want to be CCed, but the
> initial person may want to get the CCs.
> 
> In case this is not clear,
> 
> A: initial message from somebody not subscribed
> B: response to A somebody who is subscribed.
> 
> You want to respond to B, so sender(A) needs a CC but sender(B) doesn't.
> I don't think this is uncommon.

You are right, the "cascading" should be handled too (It would be much
more effective if it was tracked by a "tool", rather than by humans, as
it is currently).

I would be interesting to analyse how often people asked to be CC'ed,
but are dropped after just one or two replies.

Regards,

Franklin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Frank Lin PIAT]

On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 15:12 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Frank Lin PIAT  writes:
> 
> > If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list:
> >   If I select "Reply":
> > To=mailing-list
> > CC=
> >   If I select "Reply to all":
> > To=mailing-list
> > CC=Previous email's recipient.
> >
> > If the sender of the previous mail was NOT subscribed to the list.
> >   If I select "Reply":
> > To=sender,mailing-list
> > CC=
> >   If I select "Reply to all":
> > To=sender,mailing-list
> > CC=Previous email's recipient.
> >
> > => Do you agree with this? Can we forward it to list-masters?

> Gnus has two reply functions, which it calls "reply" and "follow-up"
> using the old Usenet definitions.  [..]
> 
> Note the capacity for private reply.  Any system that doesn't allow for
> a private reply to the sender is unacceptably broken in my opinion.

The whole m-l / CoC problem comes from the assumption that all MUAs have
advanced features, that are properly configured, and end-user have good
understanding of what to do.

If we can't achieve a reasonable behavior using Joe User's
two-buttons-MUA, then it's guaranteed that this discussion will come
over again and again.

Note that at the moment, my MUA (Evolution) has three buttons. None
behave "correctly" for mailing lists:
Reply = Reply to sender only
Reply to all = reply to all previous sender and recipients
Reply to list = Reply to list only, dropping non-subscribed sender.

Any improved proposal ? or Do we have to change the policy?

Regards,

Franklin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Frank Lin PIAT]

On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 07:46 +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> + Frank Lin PIAT (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:54:07 +0200):
> 
> > If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list:
> [...]
> 
> > If the sender of the previous mail was NOT subscribed to the list.
> [...]
> 
> And how does one (or their MUA) know which of these is the case?

That's a technical problem. Reading the thread, I am pretty sure we have
lots of m-l experts around.

My quick assumption is that the mailing list should mangle some headers
(because we shouldn't assume that the mail sender didn't configured it's
MUA to customize some headers).

Regards,

Franklin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Adeodato Simó]

+ Frank Lin PIAT (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:54:07 +0200):

> If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list:
[...]

> If the sender of the previous mail was NOT subscribed to the list.
[...]

And how does one (or their MUA) know which of these is the case?

-- 
- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
-- Rory and Lorelai


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Peter Samuelson]

[Noah Slater]
> Mandating something which relies on the wholesale upgrade of hundreds
> of MUAs to get right by default doesn't sound like a good solution to
> me. I don't care how many RFCs you wave in my face. :)

Let's see ... another series of MUA-related standards documents, RFC
2045 and following (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions), was
published in November 1996, close to 2 years before the one we're
talking about.  Maybe it's just me, but it seems like 2 years ago, a
MUA that didn't support MIME would have been laughed out of town.  Does
that mean it's finally time to expect support for RFC 2369?
-- 
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Brian May]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:19:04AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> How Mutt is able to detect  all mailing lists? The fields in the headers
> only allow to detect the current mailing list.

You can define what are mailing lists using the "lists" and "subcribe"
config options.
-- 
Brian May 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Brian May]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 02:34:11PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> personally I've more difficulty on handling usenet post on different
> computer: synchronize read post at home, office and offline laptop.

Unfortunately, this has also put me off NNTP. I think this is a
limitation in the client.

I don't think there has been much work on improving NNTP clients,
probably because everyone is addicted to mailing lists.

I want a distributed way of synchronising the read post list. I can
think of several approaches you could take, however it needs somebody
who is willing to implement it (and ideally create a standard).

(another problem with usenet is that last I looked there didn't seem to
be any real servers in my country - Australia - everything has to be
fetched from overseas servers - although it sometimes isn't always
immediately obvious).
-- 
Brian May 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Brian May]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:54:07PM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list:
>   If I select "Reply":
> To=mailing-list
> CC=

What if you are replying to a response to somebody who is not
subscribed to the list?

The emailer you are responding to may not want to be CCed, but the
initial person may want to get the CCs.

In case this is not clear,

A: initial message from somebody not subscribed
B: response to A somebody who is subscribed.

You want to respond to B, so sender(A) needs a CC but sender(B) doesn't.
I don't think this is uncommon.

By your logic no one would get the CC.
-- 
Brian May 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Russ Allbery]

Frank Lin PIAT  writes:

> If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list:
>   If I select "Reply":
> To=mailing-list
> CC=
>   If I select "Reply to all":
> To=mailing-list
> CC=Previous email's recipient.
>
> If the sender of the previous mail was NOT subscribed to the list.
>   If I select "Reply":
> To=sender,mailing-list
> CC=
>   If I select "Reply to all":
> To=sender,mailing-list
> CC=Previous email's recipient.
>
> => Do you agree with this? Can we forward it to list-masters?

I either don't agree with this or think that you're leaving out a
function that's important.

Gnus has two reply functions, which it calls "reply" and "follow-up"
using the old Usenet definitions.  Its default behavior without any
configuration is:

Reply:
  To: sender
  Cc:
Follow-Up:
  To: sender
  Cc: mailing-list

Note the capacity for private reply.  Any system that doesn't allow for
a private reply to the sender is unacceptably broken in my opinion.

If you configure Gnus with knowledge of the mailing list address, as
I've done for all the Debian mailing lists, it will instead do:

Follow-Up:
  To: mailing-list
  Cc:

and there is a separate "really wide reply" function that will copy the
sender anyway.  It also honors Mail-Followup-To, for whatever that's
worth.

I don't really care what the "default" action is, but one of the
standard reply options in any mail client should send a private reply to
a public mailing list message.

> There are a few more things I am pretty sure:
> * Joe User should not be expected to know about "Reply to list" option.
>   (Joe User only has 2 buttons: "reply" and "reply to all")

If this is the case, then your proposal above is unacceptable since it
leaves Joe User without a way to reply privately.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Frank Lin PIAT]

Hello,

On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 12:07 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: 
> Bjørn Mork  writes:
> 
> > I don't know, but there are plenty of reasons to choose from.  See e.g.
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> 
> A stronger, and simpler, case is made by
> http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful/> which
> notes that the newer IETF standards make it much clearer that the
> Reply-To field is specifically for the message sender to create.

No matter how you implement that technically, Here's what I am
considering to be a sensible behavior. [Blindly ignoring any CoC, RFC
and any other current practice. BTW I am not a mailing-list
guru/expert/addict, just observing what people do, on Debian m-l]

If the sender of the previous email is subscribed to the list:
  If I select "Reply":
To=mailing-list
CC=
  If I select "Reply to all":
To=mailing-list
CC=Previous email's recipient.

If the sender of the previous mail was NOT subscribed to the list.
  If I select "Reply":
To=sender,mailing-list
CC=
  If I select "Reply to all":
To=sender,mailing-list
CC=Previous email's recipient.

=> Do you agree with this? Can we forward it to list-masters?

There are a few more things I am pretty sure:
* Joe User should not be expected to know about mailing list, especially
  when he posts on debian-...@lists.debian.org and other user support 
  mailing list (i.e asking to be CC'ed, not CC'ing people...).
* Joe User should not be expected to know about "Reply to list" option.
  (Joe User only has 2 buttons: "reply" and "reply to all")
* Expecting any user to _configure_ it's MUA to have the expected
  behavior is the wrong way to achieve the goal.
* Expecting the user to edit headers (Reply-To or Follow-up-to...) isn't
  reasonable, because most end-user MUA (Thunderbird, Evolution,
  Outlook, Lotus Notes) don't allow doing it easily.

note: If you use debian-www (and probably a few other lists like
  debian-boot) then you are in big trouble when you need to
  reply to an @debian.org user... knowing if that user is
  subscribed is pure guess|luck.

Less is more, or to put it another way:  Yes, I am a big
fan of Gnome: i.e. Let's have less "buttons" that actually do what
people expect.

Regards,

Franklin



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Noah Slater]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 03:13:41PM -0400, James Vega wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:52:36PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:12:22PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Folders aren't the only way to manage lots of messages sanely; ask any
> > > Google Mail user.
> > >
> > > Since I wouldn't dream of recommending anyone use a proprietary data
> > > silo like Google Mail, I invite you instead to look at the ‘sup’ package
> > > for a folder-less approach to organising email messages that many say is
> > > superior.
> >
> > Description: Software Upgrade Protocol implementation
>
> Package: sup-mail
> Description: thread-centric mailer with tagging and fast search
>  Sup is a console-based email client for people with a lot of email. It
>  supports tagging, very fast full-text search, automatic contact-list
>  management, custom code insertion via a hook system, and more. If
>  you're the type of person who treats email as an extension of your
>  long-term memory, Sup is for you.

Hmm, this looks very interesting! Thanks for tip Ben.

Maybe sup will make it easier for me to reply to mailing lists properly! ;)

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Mehdi Dogguy]

Mike Hommey a écrit :
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:12:22PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Brett Parker  writes:
>>
>>> On 27 Apr 18:55, Noah Slater wrote:
 Unfortunately, I don't use folders so I don't think this will work
 for me.
>>> *boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you don't use
>>> server side filtering and folders?! OK - now that's just plain odd.
>> Folders aren't the only way to manage lots of messages sanely; ask any
>> Google Mail user.
>>
>> Since I wouldn't dream of recommending anyone use a proprietary data
>> silo like Google Mail, I invite you instead to look at the ‘sup’ package
>> for a folder-less approach to organising email messages that many say is
>> superior.
> 
> Description: Software Upgrade Protocol implementation
> ?
> 

sup-mail - thread-centric mailer with tagging and fast search

-- 
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدقي
http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~dogguy
Tel.: (+33).1.44.27.28.38


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[James Vega]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:52:36PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:12:22PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Folders aren't the only way to manage lots of messages sanely; ask any
> > Google Mail user.
> > 
> > Since I wouldn't dream of recommending anyone use a proprietary data
> > silo like Google Mail, I invite you instead to look at the ‘sup’ package
> > for a folder-less approach to organising email messages that many say is
> > superior.
> 
> Description: Software Upgrade Protocol implementation

Package: sup-mail
Description: thread-centric mailer with tagging and fast search
 Sup is a console-based email client for people with a lot of email. It
 supports tagging, very fast full-text search, automatic contact-list
 management, custom code insertion via a hook system, and more. If
 you're the type of person who treats email as an extension of your
 long-term memory, Sup is for you.

-- 
James
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Adeodato Simó]

+ Mike Hommey (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:52:36 +0200):

> > Since I wouldn't dream of recommending anyone use a proprietary data
> > silo like Google Mail, I invite you instead to look at the ‘sup’ package
> > for a folder-less approach to organising email messages that many say is
> > superior.

> Description: Software Upgrade Protocol implementation
> ?

sup-mail is the chosen package name in Debian, given that "sup" was
already taken.

Cheers,

-- 
- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
-- Rory and Lorelai


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Mike Hommey]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:12:22PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Brett Parker  writes:
> 
> > On 27 Apr 18:55, Noah Slater wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, I don't use folders so I don't think this will work
> > > for me.
> > 
> > *boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you don't use
> > server side filtering and folders?! OK - now that's just plain odd.
> 
> Folders aren't the only way to manage lots of messages sanely; ask any
> Google Mail user.
> 
> Since I wouldn't dream of recommending anyone use a proprietary data
> silo like Google Mail, I invite you instead to look at the ‘sup’ package
> for a folder-less approach to organising email messages that many say is
> superior.

Description: Software Upgrade Protocol implementation
?

Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Philipp Kern]

On 2009-04-28, Mike Hommey  wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:25:29AM -0700, Russ Allbery  
> wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut  writes:
>> > Considering that most mailing list software has an elimnatecc feature,
>> > this is never really a problem for people who don't want that sort of
>> > behavior.
>> This "feature" is hideously broken for people (like myself) who split
>> list mail into separate folders, since it suppresses exactly the copy
>> that can be reasonably filed and leaves only the one that goes into
>> one's personal inbox.
>> I personally don't mind cc's or not cc's, but that suppress cc "feature"
>> is just horrible.
> OTOH, people annoyed with Cc's can setup filters on message-ids.

And then you mostly need to prefer the mail that comes last because it
has the proper list headers.  I have yet to see such a solution.
(I.e. those filters work just fine but eliminate later mails and direct
Cc:s are usually faster, unless greylisting is employed.)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Mike Hommey]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:25:29AM -0700, Russ Allbery  wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut  writes:
> 
> > Considering that most mailing list software has an elimnatecc feature,
> > this is never really a problem for people who don't want that sort of
> > behavior.
> 
> This "feature" is hideously broken for people (like myself) who split
> list mail into separate folders, since it suppresses exactly the copy
> that can be reasonably filed and leaves only the one that goes into
> one's personal inbox.
> 
> I personally don't mind cc's or not cc's, but that suppress cc "feature"
> is just horrible.

OTOH, people annoyed with Cc's can setup filters on message-ids.

Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Russ Allbery]

Peter Eisentraut  writes:

> Considering that most mailing list software has an elimnatecc feature,
> this is never really a problem for people who don't want that sort of
> behavior.

This "feature" is hideously broken for people (like myself) who split
list mail into separate folders, since it suppresses exactly the copy
that can be reasonably filed and leaves only the one that goes into
one's personal inbox.

I personally don't mind cc's or not cc's, but that suppress cc "feature"
is just horrible.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Darren Salt]

I demand that Ben Finney may or may not have written...

[snip; M-F-T]
> RFC2822 (which define the semantics of ‘From’ and ‘Reply-To’) and
> RFC2369 (which defines the semantics of ‘List-Post’) are
> IETF-recommended standards; the other never achieved that.

Given that it's seen some use and been found to provide some worthwhile
benefit, that draft would seem to need to be revisited.

Oh, and RFC5322 obsoletes RFC2822. :-)

-- 
| Darren Salt| linux or ds at  | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + Buy local produce. Try to walk or cycle. TRANSPORT CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING.

Schedules are optimistic.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Giacomo A. Catenazzi]

Roger Leigh wrote:

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:04:50AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:

Anyway, the first rule of internet:
"be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others",
so people should accept wrong CC:s without crying, and people should follow
the CoC when sending mails.


The main problem for people like me who subscribe to a lot of lists
is that different groups have different requirements.  Debian doesn't
like CCs, others require them, others are indifferent.  It's not easy
to always do the correct thing--I don't want to remember all the
list-specific requirements, just send a reply.


Yes, this is the "liberal in what you accept from others" part, so
allowing errors without boring people with scaring message.

Unfortunately I don't think we can change the CoC, so we MUST
better handle errors.  I also prefer adding cc:s, and I really
annoyed to some scary (and sometime wrong) messagges I get
when do wrong replies.  I don't understand why people lose
time trying to point error to others, instead of just ignoring
errors (someone as a script to point errors, instead of a simple
user side discard of email).

A lot of time we lose discussion; e.g. in debian-legal:
a lot of DDs are not subscribed, so they see only half of
discussion, especially when there are new post after
some week of pause (e.g. after a private discussion
to upstream).

But I don't think it is feasible to change the CoC.


We should really be using usenet rather than mailing lists...  It
solves all of the problems and is vastly superior.  It's totally
geared to group discussion, handles crossposting to related groups,
and also allows mailing replies rather than public posting.  Some
groups (e.g. CUPS) handle this by having a public news server with
an (optional) mail gateway for backward people who prefer mail.


personally I've more difficulty on handling usenet post on different
computer: synchronize read post at home, office and offline laptop.

ciao
cate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mardi 28 avril 2009 à 14:12 +0200, Bjørn Mork a écrit :
> What's "the free software world"?  Is that a separate networking domain,
> or is it connected to the Internet?

CALL THE METAPHOR POLICE!

-- 
 .''`.  Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'   “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
  `- future understand things”  -- Jörg Schilling


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Bjørn Mork]

Josselin Mouette  writes:

> I’m not subscribed to any list which set the Reply-To header. Could you
> at least show some examples of such lists in the free software world?

What's "the free software world"?  Is that a separate networking domain,
or is it connected to the Internet?

Anyway, here are a few examples of mailing lists which set the Reply-To header:

FreeRADIUS Users' List: http://freeradius.org/list/users.html
Linux-Thinkpad List: 
http://mailman.linux-thinkpad.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-thinkpad
Load Balancing List: http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l


Bjørn


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Roger Leigh]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:04:50AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>
> Anyway, the first rule of internet:
> "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others",
> so people should accept wrong CC:s without crying, and people should follow
> the CoC when sending mails.

The main problem for people like me who subscribe to a lot of lists
is that different groups have different requirements.  Debian doesn't
like CCs, others require them, others are indifferent.  It's not easy
to always do the correct thing--I don't want to remember all the
list-specific requirements, just send a reply.

We should really be using usenet rather than mailing lists...  It
solves all of the problems and is vastly superior.  It's totally
geared to group discussion, handles crossposting to related groups,
and also allows mailing replies rather than public posting.  Some
groups (e.g. CUPS) handle this by having a public news server with
an (optional) mail gateway for backward people who prefer mail.


Regards,
Roger

-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?   http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Noah Slater]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:56:59AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Another problem on the flip side is that many people don't observe the "please
> cc me" requests on Debian mailing lists, and that way communication gets
> annoying.  So in practical terms, it is safer to add more recipients to the
> message to make sure it is received and noticed, and let computer software do
> the filtering if necessary.
>
> That is just my practical experience in trying to communicate with people.
> The policy is what it is, but I don't like it, because it *hinders* rather
> than *helps* me communicate effectively.

+1

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 02:00:05AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Regardless, the start of this sub-thread was in violation of the CoC
> itself. If you need to complain to someone about Cc:'ing you, complain
> directly to them, not to the list.
>
>  * If you want to complain to someone who sent you a carbon copy when
>you did not ask for it, do it privately.

Yes, and this happens to me about once a month. Every time, I feel like an idiot
for having forgot to observe the Code of Conduct. Like Peter Eisentraut points
out, the current technical configuration and policy hinder my ability to
communicate with others.

> Finally, if anyone has issues with how the lists are administrated or
> the CoC, mail listmas...@lists.debian.org; it doesn't really need to
> be discussed on -devel. [I won't comment further on -devel; mail
> listmaster@ if you actually have suggestions or problems.]

I actually think some value has come out of this thread. Where I previously
thought I was in the minority for being annoyed by the current technical
configuration and policy, I have found there seems to be an even split of
opinions both ways. Consensus building is valuable.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:04:50AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Anyway, the first rule of internet:
> "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others",
> so people should accept wrong CC:s without crying, and people should follow
> the CoC when sending mails.

I agree, but I wouldn't word it like this. If Debian wants to omit the Reply-To
header then I think it must accept that people are going to, purposefully or
otherwise, use the Reply To All feature of their MUAs. I don't actually have a
preference about using the Reply-To header, because it doesn't affect how I
interact with my MUA. What I object to is removing the Reply-To header and then
complaining about the consequences of that action.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:56:02AM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
> On 27 Apr 18:49, Noah Slater wrote:
> > It's not user error, because I'm just doing what I've learnt to do.
>
> Erm - how's that not user error? What you've learnt is obviously wrong.
> Relearn how to use your MUA efficiently.
[...]
> So, change your software configuration. The list software is doing the correct
> thing, the user agent is obviously your failing point here - so, either use a
> different MUA or configure your current MUA to do what you expect it to.

I think you're missing my entire point. Even if I do manage to figure out how to
configure mutt to Reply To List for mailing list posts automatically, that's
just one subscriber. The problem hasn't been solved. You still have to "upgrade"
every single other subscriber's MUA in a similar fashion. It's a totally
unrealistic goal, and so encoding it into the Code of Conduct seems wrong.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:46:01AM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
> *boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you don't use server side
> filtering and folders?! OK - now that's just plain odd.

Like Ben Finney hinted at, I used to be a Google Mail user. I brought across a
lot of things I learnt from using that interface. In case you're curious, I have
a procmail system that filters all mailing list traffic into a temporary
mailbox. I have a mutt macro that redelivers from that mailbox in batch when I
am ready to process my mailing list traffic. It works well for me.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:18:35AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Reply-to-list works with most of the major mailing list software.

It still requires me to THINK about which key to press, which has already proven
quite difficult. Even if I do train my fingers to hit the right key, which may
take some time, there will always be others who have not. This will continue
being a problem for the Debian lists until something changes.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:31:38AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> That just about covers the most popular clients in Debian. If you are
> interested in more details just search the archives of debian-user, this
> comes up every few months ;)

That this comes up so frequently should indicate something is wrong.

> I’m not subscribed to any list which set the Reply-To header. Could you
> at least show some examples of such lists in the free software world?

I don't keep more than one weeks email on my server, but here is what I fo

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Olof Johansson]

On 090428 10:18, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Reply-to-list works with most of the major mailing list software.
> 
> I’m not subscribed to any list which set the Reply-To header. Could you
> at least show some examples of such lists in the free software world?
> 

Skåne Sjælland Linux User Group (SSLUG) and Ubuntu, of which I am
subscribed sets the reply-to.

-- 
Olof Johansson 
PGP: 0x7FC0FBBA
http://www.ethup.se


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Leandro Doctors]

2009/4/28 Josselin Mouette :
> I’m not subscribed to any list which set the Reply-To header. Could you
> at least show some examples of such lists in the free software world?
Just a few (all of them form Argentina):
miembros-at-usla.org.ar; anillo-lst-at-linux.org.ar,
lug-org-at-lugmen.org.ar, *-at-{linux,usla,lugmen}.org.ar?

There are plenty of others in the Libre Software Comunity of
Argentina. They may be very popular in other coutries as well, but
that's what I can assert.

Cheers,
L


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Ben Finney]

Brett Parker  writes:

> On 27 Apr 18:55, Noah Slater wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I don't use folders so I don't think this will work
> > for me.
> 
> *boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you don't use
> server side filtering and folders?! OK - now that's just plain odd.

Folders aren't the only way to manage lots of messages sanely; ask any
Google Mail user.

Since I wouldn't dream of recommending anyone use a proprietary data
silo like Google Mail, I invite you instead to look at the ‘sup’ package
for a folder-less approach to organising email messages that many say is
superior.

-- 
 \  “What I have to do is see, at any rate, that I do not lend |
  `\  myself to the wrong which I condemn.” —Henry Thoreau, _Civil |
_o__)Disobedience_ |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Brett Parker]

On 27 Apr 18:49, Noah Slater wrote:
> > So, user error, not software error...
> 
> This illustrates my point perfectly!
> 
> It's not user error, because I'm just doing what I've learnt to do. 

Erm - how's that not user error? What you've learnt is obviously wrong. Relearn
how to use your MUA efficiently.

> When
> software use becomes habitual, usability is increased. This is how usability 
> is
> defined, instead of some abstract sense. Software that behaves according to a
> user's mental model is easy to use. Forcing people to adjust their behaviour 
> is
> a poor substitute for a technical solution.
> 
> Software should adapt to human behaviour, not the other way around.

So, change your software configuration. The list software is doing the correct
thing, the user agent is obviously your failing point here - so, either use a
different MUA or configure your current MUA to do what you expect it to.

BTW, MUAs are software too!

*sigh*.
-- 
Brett Parker


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)

[Jonathan Wiltshire]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:46:01AM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
> *boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you don't use server side
> filtering and folders?! OK - now that's just plain odd.

Neither do I, does that make me odd too? By all means comment on how I
or anyone elses uses lists, but you have no right to tell me how I
should organise my own mailbox.


-- 
Jonathan Wiltshire

PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3  A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Brett Parker]

On 28 Apr 03:58, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
> Ben Finney a écrit :
> > Noah Slater  writes:
> > 
> >> Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument
> >> is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian
> >> lists, which as you can see, doesn't happen very often.
> > 
> > No, the point of a ‘reply to list’ command is you *don't* have to
> > remember when to use it. Just use it every time you reply to any list,
> > and it will DTRT because it uses the standard fields which are in just
> > about every mailing list anywhere. The times when it doesn't will be the
> > rare ones.
> 
> Why do these functions not do a normal "Reply" when not applied to a
> mail contained within a list? What do they do then? If they also do the
> right thing for a non-list mail, why are not they bound by default to
> be the main "Reply" button? That is a real question, btw, no irony implied.

Because you don't always want to reply to the list. I rather like that Reply
means "reply to the person that wrote the e-mail" rather than "reply to the
list, the list wants to know, really".

-- 
Brett Parker


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)

[Brett Parker]

On 27 Apr 18:55, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:48:50PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > I fully agree with this. I think having to remember which key one must
> > use in each context for "r"eply is lame. This is why I do in my ~/.muttrc:
> [...]
> > Where l/debian is the folder which contains Debian lists, and it allows
> > to always use 'r' to reply to mail.
> 
> Hmm, interesting!
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't use folders so I don't think this will work for me.

*boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you don't use server side
filtering and folders?! OK - now that's just plain odd.

-- 
Brett Parker


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Giacomo A. Catenazzi]

Steve Langasek wrote:

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:16:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:

Le lundi 27 avril 2009 à 14:44 +0200, Michael Tautschnig a écrit :

If you're annoyed by cc:s (well, Holger, I know you are, you told me about that
more than once :-) ), configure your mailclient to set Mail-Followup-To and hope
for the next poster's mailclient to support that header. Which actually means
that, to a certain degree, those annoyed by cc:s could themselves do something
about it.



Mail-Followup-To is:
 A. Useless junk without clear semantics
 B. Violating standards
 C. Only supported by a handful of clients
 D. Obi-wan Kenobi says: “All of the above”


http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt

Perfectly well defined.


It wasa draft and the fourth line:
Expires: May 1998 November 1997


I don't think it is perfectly defined.

Anyway, the first rule of internet:
"be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others",
so people should accept wrong CC:s without crying, and people should follow
the CoC when sending mails.

ciao
cate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Don Armstrong]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> If this is such a concern, I would like to see the Code of Conduct
> updates to recommend that people concerned with follow up emails set
> the appropriate headers in their own clients. This was detailed
> earlier in this thread.

If people want followups, they can explicitely ask for them, whether
by setting MFT, or by just asking. This is precisely what the CoC
says:

 * 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.
 
Regardless, the start of this sub-thread was in violation of the CoC
itself. If you need to complain to someone about Cc:'ing you, complain
directly to them, not to the list.

 * If you want to complain to someone who sent you a carbon copy when
   you did not ask for it, do it privately.

Finally, if anyone has issues with how the lists are administrated or
the CoC, mail listmas...@lists.debian.org; it doesn't really need to
be discussed on -devel. [I won't comment further on -devel; mail
listmaster@ if you actually have suggestions or problems.]


Don Armstrong

-- 
We were at a chinese restaurant.
He was yelling at the waitress because there was a typo in his fortune
cookie.
 -- hugh http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/000321.html

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mardi 28 avril 2009 à 10:11 +1000, Brian May a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:16:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >  C. Only supported by a handful of clients
> 
> A number of clients won't automatically generate the header, but may
> still support it for group replies. I think this might include Evolution
> and Thunderbid (although it was a while since I tested this so I might
> be wrong) when doing a "group reply".

Evolution safely ignores any Mail-Followup-To junk, and AFAIK only cares
about mailing-list headers defined in RFC 2369 and 2919.

-- 
 .''`.  Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'   “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
  `- future understand things”  -- Jörg Schilling


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mardi 28 avril 2009 à 02:56 +0100, Noah Slater a écrit :
> It's all very well having a feature like this, but if that feature is easy to
> forget because Debian's lists are the only ones that want me use it, it's 
> hardly
> of any real value. Add a Reply-To and this problem goes away.

Reply-to-list works with most of the major mailing list software.

I’m not subscribed to any list which set the Reply-To header. Could you
at least show some examples of such lists in the free software world?

-- 
 .''`.  Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'   “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
  `- future understand things”  -- Jörg Schilling


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Adeodato Simó]

+ Mike Hommey (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:46:35 +0200):

> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:53:12AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Noah Slater  writes:

> > > Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument
> > > is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian
> > > lists, which as you can see, doesn't happen very often.

> > No, the point of a ‘reply to list’ command is you *don't* have to
> > remember when to use it. Just use it every time you reply to any list,
> > and it will DTRT because it uses the standard fields which are in just
> > about every mailing list anywhere. The times when it doesn't will be the
> > rare ones.

> There are notorious counter examples, such as the git mailing list, that
> *do* require people to Cc the people they reply to, while the mailing
> list software doesn't add Reply-To.

Oh, and actually they get very annoyed if you send your mail with a
Mail-Followup-To header that prevents their group-reply function from
adding you to the recipient list.

-- 
- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
-- Rory and Lorelai


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Ben Finney]

William Pitcock  writes:

> On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 14:05 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > As it sadly happens many times every day. And as long as there are
> > no means to enforce it (either pure social or aided by technology),
> > it will continue to happen.
> 
> Reply-To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org ?

Weird. It's almost like you haven't read any of the reasons why that's a
terrible idea, as already given in this thread (and countless times in
the past).

-- 
 \ “Of all classes the rich are the most noticed and the least |
  `\  studied.” —John Kenneth Galbraith, _The Age of Uncertainty_, |
_o__) 1977 |
Ben Finney


pgp1138Sblf4m.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Vincent Bernat]

OoO En  cette fin de  nuit blanche du  mardi 28 avril 2009,  vers 05:27,
Brian May  disait :

>> I tried hard, for many years, to love the Mail-Followup-To field, but I
>> must agree that it doesn't serve the purpose well enough to recommend.
>> (Briefly: it breaks when a discussion crosses between different mailing
>> lists, and other common use cases.)

> I don't think that is a problem with the field, but the MUA programs.
> Mutt, for example, AFAIK will list all mailing lists in the
> autogenerated Mail-Folloup-To, without allowing the user to change this
> (unless the user overrides the entire field) or pick only one mailing
> list.

How Mutt is able to detect  all mailing lists? The fields in the headers
only allow to detect the current mailing list.
-- 
BOFH excuse #419:
Repeated reboots of the system failed to solve problem


pgpZ6i9Utic39.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Peter Eisentraut]

On Tuesday 28 April 2009 05:11:26 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Noah Slater  writes:
> > As far as I see it:
> >
> >   * Debian has dropped the Reply-To header because it is "harmful" in
> > some way.
> >
> >   * Debian has mandated that all replies must behave as if Reply-To
> > existed.
>
> If this were the case, this would be an easy solution.  However, it's
> not.  Debian has mandated that all *public* replies must behave as if
> Reply-To existed, but all *private* replies behave as if it did not, and
> repliers must distinguish between the two.

One very practical problem I personally have with all of this is that on 
certain/some/many other mailing lists it is expected that you reply to the 
poster *and* the mailing list, to be sure that the poster gets your reply in 
case he is not subscribed (and also, because some people can then find replies 
to their personal problems more easily among the load of other messages).  And 
with the multitudes of communities I deal with, I do not have the time or 
concentration or infallibility to scan the emails for "please cc me" or 
"please don't cc me" notes or even reverse-engineer the mailing list's posting 
or subscription policy to make sure the message gets to who needs to read it.

Considering that most mailing list software has an elimnatecc feature, this is 
never really a problem for people who don't want that sort of behavior.

Another problem on the flip side is that many people don't observe the "please 
cc me" requests on Debian mailing lists, and that way communication gets 
annoying.  So in practical terms, it is safer to add more recipients to the 
message to make sure it is received and noticed, and let computer software do 
the filtering if necessary.

That is just my practical experience in trying to communicate with people.  
The policy is what it is, but I don't like it, because it *hinders* rather 
than *helps* me communicate effectively.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Andrei Popescu]

On Tue,28.Apr.09, 03:09:52, Noah Slater wrote:
 
> > Many of the more popular MUAs on your list have this command 
>
> Can you name any others apart from mutt that come with this by default?

Reply in Claws-Mail (and Sylpheed) does the right thing by default 
(Reply-to-List if it detects a list, Reply otherwise).

Evolution and Gnus have already been mentioned and Kmail also has 
Reply-to-List AFAIR. For Icedove you have to install an extension.

That just about covers the most popular clients in Debian. If you are 
interested in more details just search the archives of debian-user, this 
comes up every few months ;)

Regards,
Andrei
P.S. I think your muttrc is seriously screwed up. Why do you set 
Mail-Followup-to to the *previous* poster? I almost CCd Ben Finney!
-- 
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)

[William Pitcock]

On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 14:05 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Montag, 27. April 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > Interestingly you did it again, ignoring the list Code of Conduct.
> 
> As it sadly happens many times every day. And as long as there are no means 
> to 
> enforce it (either pure social or aided by technology), it will continue to 
> happen.
> 

Reply-To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org ?

William



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Mike Hommey]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:53:12AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Noah Slater  writes:
> 
> > Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument
> > is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian
> > lists, which as you can see, doesn't happen very often.
> 
> No, the point of a ‘reply to list’ command is you *don't* have to
> remember when to use it. Just use it every time you reply to any list,
> and it will DTRT because it uses the standard fields which are in just
> about every mailing list anywhere. The times when it doesn't will be the
> rare ones.

There are notorious counter examples, such as the git mailing list, that
*do* require people to Cc the people they reply to, while the mailing
list software doesn't add Reply-To.

Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Noah Slater]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:59:53PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> The appropriate fields *are* set: the mailing list sets the RFC 2369
> fields for replies to the list, and the author sets the From and
> (optionally) the Reply-To fields for replies to the sender.

The appropriate fields are set, I never said they were not.

Unfortunately, the problem is bigger than this:

  * It requires a MUA that understands these fields.

  * It requires a user to change their software interaction habits.

Both of these requirements have proven, empirically, very difficult.

> Is this so hard, people? We have large brains evolved in part precisely
> for the purpose of figuring out the protocols of communication and
> applying them moment to moment. If you don't want to decide in a given
> instance whether you want to respond publicly or privately, you're
> betraying your biological legacy.

Yes, it's very hard. This much should be obvious from the frequency with which
it happens on the Debian mailing lists. As humans, we're prone to mistakes,
laziness, and behaviour through repetition.

I will say it again, because I don't think the message is getting through.
Software should adapt to human behaviour, not the other way around. Arguing that
people should adjust the way they use their software "because it makes more
sense that way" is a poor excuse for bad engineering. This is why we write
software, after all. To make things easier for humans, not machines.

Best,

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Noah Slater]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:54:56PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Well, “like you have been doing” means *not* using it, even in this
> thread, so I find the above rather difficult to believe — especially
> because “I forgot” is even less plausible in the context of this
> thread where you've been explicitly reminded of it several times.
>
> I can only interpret this, then, as “no, I'll continue not respecting
> the CoC”.

Listen, if you have a problem my specific conduct, take it off list.

I genuinely find it hard to remember to MAKE AN EXCEPTION to my regular software
interaction just because I am sending an email to a Debian list. That I continue
to make this mistake in a thread discussing the very same problem should be an
example of how problematic the whole thing is for me, and others like me.

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Brian May]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:10:14PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> I tried hard, for many years, to love the Mail-Followup-To field, but I
> must agree that it doesn't serve the purpose well enough to recommend.
> (Briefly: it breaks when a discussion crosses between different mailing
> lists, and other common use cases.)

I don't think that is a problem with the field, but the MUA programs.
Mutt, for example, AFAIK will list all mailing lists in the
autogenerated Mail-Folloup-To, without allowing the user to change this
(unless the user overrides the entire field) or pick only one mailing
list.
-- 
Brian May 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Ben Finney]

Noah Slater  writes:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:35:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt
> >
> > Perfectly well defined.
> 
> An interesting riposte for those arguing the opposite IETF angle.

Interesting in that that draft expired in 1998, and has never been
recommended by the IETF. Those interested in seeing why not are welcome
to trawl the discussion at the time; it's surely not of interest to
raise them again here.

> I don't see how you could argue one, without the other. :)

RFC2822 (which define the semantics of ‘From’ and ‘Reply-To’) and
RFC2369 (which defines the semantics of ‘List-Post’) are
IETF-recommended standards; the other never achieved that.

-- 
 \“I used to work in a fire hydrant factory. You couldn't park |
  `\  anywhere near the place.” —Steven Wright |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Russ Allbery]

Ben Finney  writes:

> Is this so hard, people? We have large brains evolved in part
> precisely for the purpose of figuring out the protocols of
> communication and applying them moment to moment. If you don't want to
> decide in a given instance whether you want to respond publicly or
> privately, you're betraying your biological legacy.

We're too busy grooming bugs out of each other's packages.  :)

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Ben Finney]

Noah Slater  writes:

> If this is such a concern, I would like to see the Code of Conduct
> updates to recommend that people concerned with follow up emails set
> the appropriate headers in their own clients. This was detailed
> earlier in this thread.

The appropriate fields *are* set: the mailing list sets the RFC 2369
fields for replies to the list, and the author sets the From and
(optionally) the Reply-To fields for replies to the sender.

Is this so hard, people? We have large brains evolved in part precisely
for the purpose of figuring out the protocols of communication and
applying them moment to moment. If you don't want to decide in a given
instance whether you want to respond publicly or privately, you're
betraying your biological legacy.

-- 
 \   “I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me |
  `\as members.” —Groucho Marx |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Ben Finney]

Noah Slater  writes:

> I am not saying anything like "I will not obey the Code of Conduct
> because it is stupid" but rather something like "I will try my best,
> like I have been doing, but I know I will continue to fail."

Well, “like you have been doing” means *not* using it, even in this
thread, so I find the above rather difficult to believe — especially
because “I forgot” is even less plausible in the context of this
thread where you've been explicitly reminded of it several times.

I can only interpret this, then, as “no, I'll continue not respecting
the CoC”.

(good signmonster, have a cookie)

-- 
 \  “We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just |
  `\ stuff that works.” —Douglas Adams |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Ben Finney]

Brian May  writes:

> IIRC Thunderbird use to have a reply to list command, but I can't find
> it anymore :-(.

The bug has been open since 2000, and has recently seen activity again
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45715>.

Meanwhile Debian's Thunderbird is apparently patched already to allow
the feature to be implemented by an extension:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=381273>
http://alumnit.ca/wiki/index.php?page=ReplyToListThunderbirdExtension>

-- 
 \ “There is more to life than increasing its speed.” —Mahatma |
  `\Gandhi |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)

[Noah Slater]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:35:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt
>
> Perfectly well defined.

An interesting riposte for those arguing the opposite IETF angle.

If adherence to standards is so important, surely it's a net win if we respect
the intended semantics of Reply-To while simultaneously embracing the
Mail-Followup-To header.

I don't see how you could argue one, without the other. :)

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:16:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 27 avril 2009 à 14:44 +0200, Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
> > If you're annoyed by cc:s (well, Holger, I know you are, you told me about 
> > that
> > more than once :-) ), configure your mailclient to set Mail-Followup-To and 
> > hope
> > for the next poster's mailclient to support that header. Which actually 
> > means
> > that, to a certain degree, those annoyed by cc:s could themselves do 
> > something
> > about it.

> Mail-Followup-To is:
>  A. Useless junk without clear semantics
>  B. Violating standards
>  C. Only supported by a handful of clients
>  D. Obi-wan Kenobi says: “All of the above”

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt

Perfectly well defined.

People who object to Mail-Followup-To even though it precisely addresses
this problem and would be perfectly suitable as a basis for standardization
are:

  a) wankers
  b) obstructionists
  c) on Dick Cheney's payroll
  d) profit

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Jean-Christophe Dubacq]

Ben Finney a écrit :
> Noah Slater  writes:
> 
>> Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument
>> is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian
>> lists, which as you can see, doesn't happen very often.
> 
> No, the point of a ‘reply to list’ command is you *don't* have to
> remember when to use it. Just use it every time you reply to any list,
> and it will DTRT because it uses the standard fields which are in just
> about every mailing list anywhere. The times when it doesn't will be the
> rare ones.

Why do these functions not do a normal "Reply" when not applied to a
mail contained within a list? What do they do then? If they also do the
right thing for a non-list mail, why are not they bound by default to
be the main "Reply" button? That is a real question, btw, no irony implied.

-- 
JCD



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Ben Finney]

Bjørn Mork  writes:

> I don't know, but there are plenty of reasons to choose from.  See e.g.
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

A stronger, and simpler, case is made by
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful/> which
notes that the newer IETF standards make it much clearer that the
Reply-To field is specifically for the message sender to create.

-- 
 \“My doctor told me to stop having intimate dinners for four. |
  `\   Unless there are three other people.” —Orson Welles |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Ben Hutchings]

On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 03:09 +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:04:05PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Those MUAs already *do* the right thing when a user presses “reply to
> > author” (sometimes just called “reply”): they reply to the author or,
> > if the author sets a ‘Reply-To’ field, to the author's chosen reply
> > address from that field.
> >
> > The correct MUA command to use when replying to a list is “reply to
> > list”, which follows the information set by the list software in the
> > RFC 2369 fields on every message.
> 
> Idealism is fine, but pragmatism is more useful.
> 
> > Many of the more popular MUAs on your list have this command already,
> 
> Can you name any others apart from mutt that come with this by default?
[...]

Evolution, which is effectively the default GUI mailer in Debian.

Ben.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Russ Allbery]

Noah Slater  writes:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:04:05PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:

>> Many of the more popular MUAs on your list have this command already,

> Can you name any others apart from mutt that come with this by default?

Gnus has a version of it.  It doesn't work quite the way that mutt's
does, but it does basically the same thing.  The only problem with the
implementation that I currently have in Gnus (and I may just be missing
some angle of it) is that unless I pay careful attention, Gnus will drop
any list cross-mailing in replies and reply only to the list
corresponding to the group (Gnus speak for folder) in which I'm reading
the message.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Ben Finney]

Josselin Mouette  writes:

> Le lundi 27 avril 2009 à 14:44 +0200, Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
> > If you're annoyed by cc:s (well, Holger, I know you are, you told me
> > about that more than once :-) ), configure your mailclient to set
> > Mail-Followup-To
> 
> Mail-Followup-To is:
>  A. Useless junk without clear semantics
>  B. Violating standards
>  C. Only supported by a handful of clients
>  D. Obi-wan Kenobi says: “All of the above”

I tried hard, for many years, to love the Mail-Followup-To field, but I
must agree that it doesn't serve the purpose well enough to recommend.
(Briefly: it breaks when a discussion crosses between different mailing
lists, and other common use cases.)

-- 
 \“Good morning, Pooh Bear”, said Eeyore gloomily. “If it is a |
  `\   good morning”, he said. “Which I doubt”, said he. —A. A. Milne, |
_o__)_Winnie-the-Pooh_ |
Ben Finney


pgpIiz3YoQi3G.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Noah Slater]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:11:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The primary problem with setting Reply-To is that it makes private
> replies extremely difficult (in clients that honor the RFC-defined
> meaning of the header field, at least) and significantly increases the
> chances that private replies will accidentally become public.  I don't
> think that's the right social direction in which to go.

If this is such a concern, I would like to see the Code of Conduct updates to
recommend that people concerned with follow up emails set the appropriate
headers in their own clients. This was detailed earlier in this thread.

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Russ Allbery]

Noah Slater  writes:

> As far as I see it:
>
>   * Debian has dropped the Reply-To header because it is "harmful" in
> some way.
>
>   * Debian has mandated that all replies must behave as if Reply-To existed.

If this were the case, this would be an easy solution.  However, it's
not.  Debian has mandated that all *public* replies must behave as if
Reply-To existed, but all *private* replies behave as if it did not, and
repliers must distinguish between the two.

Simplifications that drop that distinction will always miss the point.

The primary problem with setting Reply-To is that it makes private
replies extremely difficult (in clients that honor the RFC-defined
meaning of the header field, at least) and significantly increases the
chances that private replies will accidentally become public.  I don't
think that's the right social direction in which to go.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Ben Finney]

Noah Slater  writes:

> You're arguing that a Reply-To header is "harmful" (not that I am
> convinced)

That field is very useful. What's harmful is mailing-list software
munging that field, which is for the author to set and for nothing else
to fiddle with.

-- 
 \  “Saying that Java is nice because it works on all OSes is like |
  `\ saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders” |
_o__)—http://bash.org/ |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Noah Slater]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:04:05PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Those MUAs already *do* the right thing when a user presses “reply to
> author” (sometimes just called “reply”): they reply to the author or,
> if the author sets a ‘Reply-To’ field, to the author's chosen reply
> address from that field.
>
> The correct MUA command to use when replying to a list is “reply to
> list”, which follows the information set by the list software in the
> RFC 2369 fields on every message.

Idealism is fine, but pragmatism is more useful.

> Many of the more popular MUAs on your list have this command already,

Can you name any others apart from mutt that come with this by default?

> So I'd modify your point above to say: “Until the following MUAs are
> fixed to have a proper RFC-2369-conformant “reply to list” command”,
> and reducing the list of recalcitrant MUAs accordingly.

Mandating something which relies on the wholesale upgrade of hundreds of MUAs to
get right by default doesn't sound like a good solution to me. I don't care how
many RFCs you wave in my face. :)

> > /me uses Debian's default MUA
> > /me tries hard to avoid CC'ing sender.
>
> It's quite easy: use the “reply to list” command when you want your
> reply to go to the list.

If you have one, and you remember to use it.

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Noah Slater]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:53:12AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> No, the point of a ‘reply to list’ command is you *don't* have to
> remember when to use it. Just use it every time you reply to any list,
> and it will DTRT because it uses the standard fields which are in just
> about every mailing list anywhere. The times when it doesn't will be the
> rare ones.

I appreciate the sentiment, but it's not going to happen.

I am not saying anything like "I will not obey the Code of Conduct because it is
stupid" but rather something like "I will try my best, like I have been doing,
but I know I will continue to fail."

If my MUA was able to spot that I was replying to a list and do this
automatically for me, that would be great. But what about every single other MUA
out there? That's 66 MUAs according to Frank Lin PIAT.

To quote Mark Pilgrim on a different topic entirely:

  I like how he focuses on the publisher’s end of the problem — “gee, all we
  have to do is define this permissions table, that sounds easy.” What he fails
  to mention is that every font-consuming application on every platform on every
  computer on Earth will need to be “upgraded” to “respect” this permissions
  table. Because otherwise they’re not really permissions, are they? They’re
  just useless bits taking valuable chunks out of my metered bandwidth plan.
  Like the bozo bit without the bozo.

- http://diveintomark.org/archives/2009/04/21/fuck-the-foundries

As far as I see it:

  * Debian has dropped the Reply-To header because it is "harmful" in some way.

  * Debian has mandated that all replies must behave as if Reply-To existed.

  * This breaks the vast majority of clients when replying to list emails.

So yeah, I think this is a great solution. All we need to do now is make sure
that every computer that participates on the Debian mailing lists is "upgraded"
to "respect" this policy.

Best,

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Ben Finney]

Frank Lin PIAT  writes:

> This thread will come over again and again until:
[…]

> 4. The following MUA are fixed to behave "properly" when a user
>press "reply":

Those MUAs already *do* the right thing when a user presses “reply to
author” (sometimes just called “reply”): they reply to the author or,
if the author sets a ‘Reply-To’ field, to the author's chosen reply
address from that field.

The correct MUA command to use when replying to a list is “reply to
list”, which follows the information set by the list software in the
RFC 2369 fields on every message.

Many of the more popular MUAs on your list have this command already,
and they do the right thing. (Unless the list software in question is
misconfigured to munge the author's message and add a bogus Reply-To
field which the author didn't set.)

So I'd modify your point above to say: “Until the following MUAs are
fixed to have a proper RFC-2369-conformant “reply to list” command”,
and reducing the list of recalcitrant MUAs accordingly.

> /me uses Debian's default MUA
> /me tries hard to avoid CC'ing sender.

It's quite easy: use the “reply to list” command when you want your
reply to go to the list.

-- 
 \ Legionnaire: “We have their leader captive!”  Cæsar: “Is he |
  `\   bound?”  Legionnaire: “Of his health I know not, sir.” —The |
_o__)Goon Show, _The Histories Of Pliny The Elder_ |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Ben Finney]

Holger Levsen  writes:

> Dear lazylist,
> 
> On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> >   * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, 
> 
> does someone know why?

In brief: because that field is for the *sender* to set, if they want;
and the mailing list software has no business touching it.
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful>

-- 
 \ “If you're a horse, and someone gets on you, and falls off, and |
  `\  then gets right back on you, I think you should buck him off |
_o__)right away.” —Jack Handey |
Ben Finney


pgpjNxrVaN7hH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Noah Slater]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:34:49AM +0930, Karl Goetz wrote:
> /me had to use 'L' on Debians default MUA for the reply-to-list.

It's all very well having a feature like this, but if that feature is easy to
forget because Debian's lists are the only ones that want me use it, it's hardly
of any real value. Add a Reply-To and this problem goes away.

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Ben Finney]

Noah Slater  writes:

> Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument
> is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian
> lists, which as you can see, doesn't happen very often.

No, the point of a ‘reply to list’ command is you *don't* have to
remember when to use it. Just use it every time you reply to any list,
and it will DTRT because it uses the standard fields which are in just
about every mailing list anywhere. The times when it doesn't will be the
rare ones.

-- 
 \“I was in the grocery store. I saw a sign that said ‘pet |
  `\  supplies’. So I did. Then I went outside and saw a sign that |
_o__) said ‘compact cars’.” —Steven Wright |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Karl Goetz]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:23:33 +0200
Frank Lin PIAT  wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 14:48 +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > Dne Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:39:15 +0100
> > Noah Slater  napsal(a):

> > >   * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, meaning that
> > > by default my email client wants to send replies to individual
> > > posters. To get the mailing list included in the reply means that
> > > I have to reply to all. It's a very easy mistake to make, not to
> > > remember to manually shuffle these addresses around each time I
> > > want to send a follow up. Don't make me think!
> > 
> > See http://wiki.mutt.org/?MuttLists, part Lists' "technical". (Most
> > email clients do have this feature, Mutt was chosen because of
> > User-Agent field in your email.)
> 
> This thread will come over again and again until:
> 
> 1. Debian stops getting new contributors (that haven't configured
> their MUA properly "yet")
> 2. Debian mailing-list sends appropriate "hints" so MUAs behave in
>conformance with the m-l policy.
> 3. Debian mailing-lists' policy is changes.
> 4. The following MUA are fixed to behave "properly" when a user
>press "reply":
> 
> grep -hE '^(User-Agent:|X-Mailer)' lists/*  | sed -e 's/^[^:]*:\s*//'
> \ | sed -e 's,[ /].*,,' -e 's,(.*,,' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n -k 1


> 343 Claws
> 329 Sylpheed

Claws usually does this correctly, I think the exception is when the
direct reply is the one you respond to.

> 
> /me uses Debian's default MUA
> /me tries hard to avoid CC'ing sender.
> /me sometimes fails to remove CC'd people.

/me had to use 'L' on Debians default MUA for the reply-to-list.
kk

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Franklin


-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian user / gNewSense contributor
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)

[Brian May]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:16:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>  C. Only supported by a handful of clients

A number of clients won't automatically generate the header, but may
still support it for group replies. I think this might include Evolution
and Thunderbid (although it was a while since I tested this so I might
be wrong) when doing a "group reply".

IIRC Thunderbird use to have a reply to list command, but I can't find
it anymore :-(.

-- 
Brian May 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s

[Frank Lin PIAT]

On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 14:48 +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Dne Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:39:15 +0100
> Noah Slater  napsal(a):
> 
> >   * The Debian lists are the only lists I have ever come across that 
> > mandate, or
> > even care, about such a thing. I have been on many lists in my time, 
> > and my
> > current list of mailing list subscriptions stands at 73. On every single
> > other list, this isn't a problem, and things just work.
> 
> Definitely not the only one which mandates this.
> 
> >   * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, meaning that by default 
> > my
> > email client wants to send replies to individual posters. To get the 
> > mailing
> > list included in the reply means that I have to reply to all. It's a 
> > very
> > easy mistake to make, not to remember to manually shuffle these 
> > addresses
> > around each time I want to send a follow up. Don't make me think!
> 
> See http://wiki.mutt.org/?MuttLists, part Lists' "technical". (Most
> email clients do have this feature, Mutt was chosen because of
> User-Agent field in your email.)

This thread will come over again and again until:

1. Debian stops getting new contributors (that haven't configured their
   MUA properly "yet")
2. Debian mailing-list sends appropriate "hints" so MUAs behave in
   conformance with the m-l policy.
3. Debian mailing-lists' policy is changes.
4. The following MUA are fixed to behave "properly" when a user
   press "reply":

grep -hE '^(User-Agent:|X-Mailer)' lists/*  | sed -e 's/^[^:]*:\s*//' \
 | sed -e 's,[ /].*,,' -e 's,(.*,,' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n -k 1 -r
  10206 Mutt
   3046 Evolution
   2684 Gnus
   2208 KMail
   1755 reportbug
   1370 Mozilla-Thunderbird
   1365 Thunderbird
503 MIME-tools
376 Mozilla
343 Claws
329 Sylpheed
323 Alpine
265 Microsoft...
244 KNode
234 Madmutt
195 mutt-ng
187 SquirrelMail
186 Apple
150 slrn
112 Internet
104 VM
 94 YahooMailWebService
 81 Heirloom
 68 tin
 65 RoundCube
 65 Icedove
 64 maintainers-needed.pl
 57 IceDove
 55 Mew
 46 YahooMailRC
 43 Wanderlust
 39 nail
 38 Gemini
 37 Forte
 35 The
 35 Pan
 28 WWW-Mail
 28 Loom
 24 PHPMailer
 23 netcat
 23 CAcert.org
 22 Opera
 20 git-send-email
 18 devscripts
 15 Lotus
 14 IlohaMail
 13 Microsoft-Entourage
 11 Web-Based
 11 G2
 11 Debian
 10 Zimbra
  9 TOI
  9 MessagingEngine.com
  8 Sylpheed-Claws
  8 SnapperMail
  8 SEMI
  8 QUALCOMM
  8 mPOP
  7 Sympa
  7 StGIT
  7 PHP
  7 Openwave
  7 Balsa
  6 Pegasus
  6 I.UA
  6 Centrum
and few others

/me uses Debian's default MUA
/me tries hard to avoid CC'ing sender.
/me sometimes fails to remove CC'd people.

Regards,

Franklin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)

[Noah Slater]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:48:50PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> I fully agree with this. I think having to remember which key one must
> use in each context for "r"eply is lame. This is why I do in my ~/.muttrc:
[...]
> Where l/debian is the folder which contains Debian lists, and it allows
> to always use 'r' to reply to mail.

Hmm, interesting!

Unfortunately, I don't use folders so I don't think this will work for me.

Thanks,

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Noah Slater]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:09:19PM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
> On 27 Apr 15:41, Noah Slater wrote:
> > You're arguing that a Reply-To header is "harmful" (not that I am 
> > convinced) and
>
> Think of the occasions when you actually do want to do an offlist reply - it's
> not that uncommon - having Reply-To set to default to the list causes a lot of
> people to "get it wrong" because they're used to sensible mailing lists that
> get it right - this happens quite often on one of the mailing lists I'm
> subscribed to.

Considering that we're discussing on a mailing list, it's reasonable to assume
that the common case is replying to the list. Why optimise for, what is surely
by definition, the uncommon case?

You're asserting that most people are "used" to "sensible" lists that don't set
the Reply-To header. Unfortunately, without a survey to back up that claim I
cannot believe it - based upon my own, extensive, experience. I realise that I
am making a similar assertion.

> > so people should learn to use some additional, uncommonly found, feature of
> > their MUAs to work around the technological problem. I don't buy this 
> > argument
> > at all. Technology should adapt to human behaviour, and not the other way
> > around. There is something fundamentally wrong when we try to solve a 
> > technical
> > problem with a Code of Conduct.
>
> It's not a technical problem, it's a social problem. Technical solutions to
> social problems are always wrong.

How is it a social problem? That clearly doesn't make any sense.

There is only one problem here. Debian doesn't want mailing list replies to
include the original senders. That isn't a social problem, that's a technical
problem. When people are replying to mailing list traffic, they hit the button
they've learnt to hit. There's nothing more complex going on. When a Reply-To
header is added by the mailing list software, a larger proportion of people's
default software interaction works as desired.

> > Without a Reply-To header, we should expect people to Reply To Group. It 
> > doesn't
> > matter if we have a Code of Conduct, people will always make mistakes. The 
> > only
> > sensible thing to do in this situation would be to recommend that people who
> > care properly configure their Mail-Followup-To and Mail-Reply-To headers.
>
> I wouldn't expect that. I'd expect that if they usually reply to the list they
> would configure their MUA to reply to the list.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you clarify?

> > If Reply To Group is so harmful that we want to avoid it completely, then I
> > think we should consider adding a Reply-To header to the mailing list 
> > emails -
> > like many other mailing lists do for exactly this reason.
>
> Many many more don't add the Reply-To header as it is harmful.

Without evidence to back this up, we're both just making assertions.

I just created a Google Group, with what must be the largest provider of hosted
mailing lists currently in existence. The default setting appears to be the
inclusion of a forced Reply-To header. Given Google's popularity, it seems
reasonable to conclude that adding a Reply-To is more common.

Additionally, I've not heard a convincing argument why Reply-To is harmful.

It would solve the spurious CC replies, but at what specific cost?

> > P.S. I had to manually edit the To and CC headers of this email before 
> > sending
> > out because I had forgot to press the L key in mutt, one of the few clients 
> > that
> > actually has such a feature.
>
> So, user error, not software error...

This illustrates my point perfectly!

It's not user error, because I'm just doing what I've learnt to do. When
software use becomes habitual, usability is increased. This is how usability is
defined, instead of some abstract sense. Software that behaves according to a
user's mental model is easy to use. Forcing people to adjust their behaviour is
a poor substitute for a technical solution.

Software should adapt to human behaviour, not the other way around.

Best,

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)

[Adeodato Simó]

+ Noah Slater (Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:10:17 +0100):

> Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument
> is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian
> lists

I fully agree with this. I think having to remember which key one must
use in each context for "r"eply is lame. This is why I do in my ~/.muttrc:

  folder-hook .   bind index r reply
  folder-hook .   bind pager r reply
  folder-hook .   bind index L list-reply
  folder-hook .   bind pager L list-reply

  folder-hook =l/debian bind index r list-reply
  folder-hook =l/debian bind pager r list-reply
  folder-hook =l/debian bind index L reply
  folder-hook =l/debian bind pager L reply

Where l/debian is the folder which contains Debian lists, and it allows
to always use 'r' to reply to mail.

-- 
- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
-- Rory and Lorelai


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Brett Parker]

On 27 Apr 15:41, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:19:08PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > Noah Slater wrote:
> > > Either you avoid Reply-To because it is "harmful" and accept that you 
> > > will get
> > > carbon copies from the commonly implemented group reply function of 
> > > modern mail
> > > clients, or you include the "harmful" Reply-To header and avoid it.
> > >
> > > What am I missing? This seems too obviously flawed an argument.
> >
> > Either you add it, which is harmful, or you don't, and people should use 
> > reply
> > to the list when replying to the list. Most (or many) MUAs have a trivial 
> > way to
> > do that, as you already know. So instead of 'replying to all', just 'reply 
> > to
> > the list'. Not too complicated, and you could start to do that with other 
> > lists too.
> 
> How many MUAs actually have a Reply To List feature? Gmail and most of the 
> other
> online Web mail clients do not have this feature. Microsoft Outlook doesn't, 
> nor
> does Thunderbird by default. So based on this alone, the Debian CoC is 
> depending
> on an uncommon feature for proper behaviour.
> 
> Even if this was a common feature of MUAs, it presents a significant usability
> barrier. Most people struggle to use Reply and Reply To All properly, without
> the additional cognitive burden of having to remember when they are 
> specifically
> replying to a mailing list.
> 
> You're arguing that a Reply-To header is "harmful" (not that I am convinced) 
> and

Think of the occasions when you actually do want to do an offlist reply - it's
not that uncommon - having Reply-To set to default to the list causes a lot of
people to "get it wrong" because they're used to sensible mailing lists that
get it right - this happens quite often on one of the mailing lists I'm
subscribed to.

> so people should learn to use some additional, uncommonly found, feature of
> their MUAs to work around the technological problem. I don't buy this argument
> at all. Technology should adapt to human behaviour, and not the other way
> around. There is something fundamentally wrong when we try to solve a 
> technical
> problem with a Code of Conduct.

It's not a technical problem, it's a social problem. Technical solutions to
social problems are always wrong.

> Without a Reply-To header, we should expect people to Reply To Group. It 
> doesn't
> matter if we have a Code of Conduct, people will always make mistakes. The 
> only
> sensible thing to do in this situation would be to recommend that people who
> care properly configure their Mail-Followup-To and Mail-Reply-To headers.

I wouldn't expect that. I'd expect that if they usually reply to the list they
would configure their MUA to reply to the list.

> If Reply To Group is so harmful that we want to avoid it completely, then I
> think we should consider adding a Reply-To header to the mailing list emails -
> like many other mailing lists do for exactly this reason.

Many many more don't add the Reply-To header as it is harmful.

> P.S. I had to manually edit the To and CC headers of this email before sending
> out because I had forgot to press the L key in mutt, one of the few clients 
> that
> actually has such a feature.

So, user error, not software error...

-- 
Brett Parker


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Bjørn Mork]

Josselin Mouette  writes:

> Mail-Followup-To is:
>  A. Useless junk without clear semantics
>  B. Violating standards

Which standards would that be?


Bjørn


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Noah Slater]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:19:08PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Noah Slater wrote:
> > Either you avoid Reply-To because it is "harmful" and accept that you will 
> > get
> > carbon copies from the commonly implemented group reply function of modern 
> > mail
> > clients, or you include the "harmful" Reply-To header and avoid it.
> >
> > What am I missing? This seems too obviously flawed an argument.
>
> Either you add it, which is harmful, or you don't, and people should use reply
> to the list when replying to the list. Most (or many) MUAs have a trivial way 
> to
> do that, as you already know. So instead of 'replying to all', just 'reply to
> the list'. Not too complicated, and you could start to do that with other 
> lists too.

How many MUAs actually have a Reply To List feature? Gmail and most of the other
online Web mail clients do not have this feature. Microsoft Outlook doesn't, nor
does Thunderbird by default. So based on this alone, the Debian CoC is depending
on an uncommon feature for proper behaviour.

Even if this was a common feature of MUAs, it presents a significant usability
barrier. Most people struggle to use Reply and Reply To All properly, without
the additional cognitive burden of having to remember when they are specifically
replying to a mailing list.

You're arguing that a Reply-To header is "harmful" (not that I am convinced) and
so people should learn to use some additional, uncommonly found, feature of
their MUAs to work around the technological problem. I don't buy this argument
at all. Technology should adapt to human behaviour, and not the other way
around. There is something fundamentally wrong when we try to solve a technical
problem with a Code of Conduct.

Without a Reply-To header, we should expect people to Reply To Group. It doesn't
matter if we have a Code of Conduct, people will always make mistakes. The only
sensible thing to do in this situation would be to recommend that people who
care properly configure their Mail-Followup-To and Mail-Reply-To headers.

If Reply To Group is so harmful that we want to avoid it completely, then I
think we should consider adding a Reply-To header to the mailing list emails -
like many other mailing lists do for exactly this reason.

P.S. I had to manually edit the To and CC headers of this email before sending
out because I had forgot to press the L key in mutt, one of the few clients that
actually has such a feature.

Best,

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Noah Slater wrote:
> Either you avoid Reply-To because it is "harmful" and accept that you will get
> carbon copies from the commonly implemented group reply function of modern 
> mail
> clients, or you include the "harmful" Reply-To header and avoid it.
> 
> What am I missing? This seems too obviously flawed an argument.

Either you add it, which is harmful, or you don't, and people should use reply
to the list when replying to the list. Most (or many) MUAs have a trivial way to
do that, as you already know. So instead of 'replying to all', just 'reply to
the list'. Not too complicated, and you could start to do that with other lists 
too.

So not flawed IMHO.

Cheers,
Emilio



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)

[Josselin Mouette]

Le lundi 27 avril 2009 à 14:44 +0200, Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
> If you're annoyed by cc:s (well, Holger, I know you are, you told me about 
> that
> more than once :-) ), configure your mailclient to set Mail-Followup-To and 
> hope
> for the next poster's mailclient to support that header. Which actually means
> that, to a certain degree, those annoyed by cc:s could themselves do something
> about it.

Mail-Followup-To is:
 A. Useless junk without clear semantics
 B. Violating standards
 C. Only supported by a handful of clients
 D. Obi-wan Kenobi says: “All of the above”

-- 
 .''`.  Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'   “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
  `- future understand things”  -- Jörg Schilling



signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)

[Michal Čihař]

Hi

Dne Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:33:06 +
Clint Adams  napsal(a):

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> > Definitely not the only one which mandates this.
> 
> Please list others so I can mock them.

For example Mutt lists I mentioned. I saw the same rule in Frugalware
and Ubuntu does not mandate this, but they tell you to use Reply To
List function.

-- 
Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Matthias Julius]

Noah Slater  writes:

>   * I don't know much about mailing list software, so I'm not going to be as
> bold as to suggest I know what the solution is. However, on all the other
> lists, I never get duplicate copies of email when people reply to me with 
> an
> unnecessary CC. Perhaps they are intelligently filtering out recipients 
> from
> the mailing list software?

Don't know about the Debian list server, but mailman for example can
be set to not send a list posting to someone who is already in To: or
Cc:.  But, I don't like that because I have my mail sorted by List-Id
and mails sent directly to me obviously don't have that header.

Also, for example cyrus can filter out duplicate mail.  But, since the
direct mail is usually faster than the one going through the list
server, this results in the same problem as above.

That's why I like the way Debian lists are setup and the CoC.

>
>   * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, meaning that by default my
> email client wants to send replies to individual posters. To get the 
> mailing
> list included in the reply means that I have to reply to all. It's a very
> easy mistake to make, not to remember to manually shuffle these addresses
> around each time I want to send a follow up. Don't make me think!

Doesn't mutt have a reply-to-list functionality?

Matthias


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)

[Clint Adams]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> Definitely not the only one which mandates this.

Please list others so I can mock them.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)

[Noah Slater]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:06:01PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 03:03:10PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> > >   * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header,
>
> > does someone know why?
>
>   http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

>From that page:

  Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer. People
  want to munge Reply-To headers to make "reply back to the list" easy. But it
  already is easy. Reasonable mail programs have two separate "reply" commands:
  one that replies directly to the author of a message, and another that replies
  to the author plus all of the list recipients. Even the lowly Berkeley Mail
  command has had this for about a decade.

  Any reasonable, modern mailer provides this feature. I prefer the Elm mailer. 
It
  has separate "r)eply" and "g)roup-reply" commands. If I want to reply to the
  author of a message, I strike the "r" key. If I want to send a reply to the
  entire list, I hit "g" instead. Piece 'o cake.

If you include the Reply-To header, then responses go back to the list with no
duplicated carbon copies. This page is recommending that this isn't necessary
because all good mail clients have a group reply option. But Debian forbids the
group reply function because this ends up adding unnecessary carbon copies.

So it seems you cannot have your cake and eat it!

Either you avoid Reply-To because it is "harmful" and accept that you will get
carbon copies from the commonly implemented group reply function of modern mail
clients, or you include the "harmful" Reply-To header and avoid it.

What am I missing? This seems too obviously flawed an argument.

Best,

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?

[Bjørn Mork]

Holger Levsen  writes:
> On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
>>   * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, 
>
> does someone know why?

I don't know, but there are plenty of reasons to choose from.  See e.g.
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Those not wanting redundant CCs should also read
http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html


Bjørn


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)

[Noah Slater]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> >   * The Debian lists are the only lists I have ever come across that 
> > mandate, or
> > even care, about such a thing. I have been on many lists in my time, 
> > and my
> > current list of mailing list subscriptions stands at 73. On every single
> > other list, this isn't a problem, and things just work.
>
> Definitely not the only one which mandates this.

I was careful to specify that in my experience, it was the only one I have come
across to mandate this. I am sure that there are other lists with a similar
policy. My point was that it is uncommon, and hence something I actually have to
remember. In a way, it gets in the way of me sending email because it's trying
to enforce a technical change via social means, which seems doomed to failure.

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:51:01AM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> I don't mean to continue the argument, but I see that you are using
> Mutt. If that is the case, I am certain that it would not take you too
> much effort to use list-reply (`L', by default). I ask you to do this
> not because you don't follow list protocol, but you make it difficult
> for others as to follow it; for example, by default, when I chose to
> reply, this mail went to the list and was CC'ed to Holger, because of
> the strange way the headers came from your mail!

Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument is that I
have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian lists, which as you can
see, doesn't happen very often.

In my last email, I made a subtle reference to the following book:

  "The book's premise is that a good program or web site should let users
  accomplish their intended tasks as easily and directly as possible. Krug 
points
  out that people are good at satisficing, or taking the first available 
solution
  to their problem, so design should take advantage of this."

  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Make_Me_Think

  If we find something that works, we stick to it. Once we find something that
  works—no matter how badly—we tend not to look for a better way. We’ll use a
  better way if we stumble across one, but we seldom look for one.

  - http://www.sensible.com/chapter.html

Anyway, this is my way of saying that a thousand previous mailing list responses
have taught me to send group replies. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. The
Debian lists try to force me into thinking about the type of reply I should
send, and inevitably fails more often than not.

It doesn't fail because I'm stupid. I understand the theory behind it, and will
apologise when people politely remind me. Instead, it fails because I'm human,
lazy, and error prone. And it seems I'm not the only one.

Best,

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 03:03:10PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> >   * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, 

> does someone know why?

http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)

[Holger Levsen]

Dear lazylist,

On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
>   * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, 

does someone know why?


regards,
Holger


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.