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)
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 reply 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? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
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? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:05:37PM +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. I think it's a broken requirement. I am aware that it exists, and when I remember it, I try to follow it. However, there are some major problems: * 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. * 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? * 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! 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)
Hi Dne Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:39:15 +0100 Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org 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.) -- 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? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
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. regards, Holger, who tries to mentally ignore being annoyed by cc:s but fails on this way to often... 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. Best, Michael pgpZGOIZ69YuQ.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? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:39:15PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote: * 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! 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! Do you use the lists and subscribe keywords for this list in your muttrc? Thanks. Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah -- 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
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)
Hi Dne Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:33:06 + Clint Adams sch...@debian.org 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? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
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)
+ 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 reply 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? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
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 reply 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? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
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 b...@snoopy.debian.net -- 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)
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? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
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)
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
