Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[MJ Ray]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> If you're not subscribed and don't want copies anyway, set your own MFT
> header saying so, which would prevent the list from guessing otherwise.
> If the user has set MFT explicitly, the list should probably not mess
> with it.

If the user has explicitly not set MFT because they don't want to
use broken non-standards, the list should not mess with it either.
-- 
MJR/slef
Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-03-21 14:57:07, schrieb MJ Ray:

> Not at all sure! It seems it was finally fixed in debian version
> 1.5.6-20040722+1 (CVS snapshot 20040722), closing Bug 49048.

This maybe the case for List-*, but under 1.2 (Potato)
I had allready listreply.  Cheched for some seconds and
it was allready under Slink with version 0.95.

Greetings
Michelle Konzack


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Michelle Konzack]

Sorry for the late answer, but I was in Turkey.

Am 2006-03-13 20:20:00, schrieb Benjamin Seidenberg:

> How many Joe/Jane users do you think can handle the complexity and 
> different paradigm required by mutt? These mailers are easy to use, and 

The question is:What is complex?

I have splited the muttrc in smaller logical files and coded a simpel
xdialog interface which can someone use to configure mutt basicly.

But where is the problem?

If you have a GUI, you must read, where to set options.
Same if you open your muttrc in your prefered editor.

So its only an excuise for braidamaged Windows-Users.

AND, -- how often do you change your setings?

I have changed my muttrc the last time for 2 or three years.
Only added some lists to my "subscribe" include

> are well integrated into the desktop environment. Most importantly, they 
> offer GUI/Point-and-Click interfaces so that they are easy to use.

Where is the different between "r", "L" and "g" and the mouse?

I read and write my Messages with my hands and these are laying
on my Keyboard.  If there are no Keybindings I need a Mouse, for
which I must leave my Keyboard...  This is non-productiv!

> (I want to set up mutt eventually, but I don't have the time to relearn 
> mail at the mmomment. Perhaps this summer).

What do you want to learn?

I was switchin in 03/1999 from WfW3.11/NT4.0 to Debian entirely,
one day to another after someone borke into my appartement and
had stolen my whole M$ Software for more then 80.000 US$.

Becasue M$ wont replace and I had no money, I had to switch to
GNU/Linux.  Now I am since 7 years M$-Free!

Oh the MUA...  It was Eudora Lite/Pro and the I have use mutt.
the defaults are allready suitable for working under Debian.

> Again, how many Joe users are going to install extensions or mess around 
> with their prefs.js to set up arbitrary headers ("headers? what are 
> those")? This sort of thing has to work out of the box for everyone.

Do they need such stuff?  What "arbitrary headers" should the set?
I do not knoe one, which must be set, to post/reply correctly to
Mailinglists.

Greetings
Michelle Konzack


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Michelle Konzack]

Sorry, for the late answer, but I was in Turkey...
(creating a new enterprise in Denizli/Ankara)

Am 2006-03-22 12:15:29, schrieb Sven Mueller:

> Huh? I do just that on a regular basis. And Thunderbird doesn't load
> external pics from mails in either online or offline mode unless you

I do not mean the external pics...  I meen the inline ones...  On the
Debian-List there are several subscribers, which use crapy WebMailer
which add publicity in form of Pics at the end.

> specifically ask it to do so. You probably didn't try TB for a long time.

Very right.

> If you are a developer, you can't also be a "normal user". You have
> higher skills than the normal user.

OK.

> I second urging devs to implement List-Reply stuff though. But I don't
> recommend implementing M-F-T (though I don't advise against it either).

Currently I am coding a KDE/Gnome-free IMAP-MUA, based
on the ideas of mutt but for X-Window, using GTK+ 2.0.

I collect many ideas to code my MUA.  ;-)

So this M-F-T/List-Reply Thread is realy interesting...

> >>Also, it's not like we are discussing about mailers for a propietary
> >>OS, but it's a free mailer that works inside Debian.
> > 
> > ...where some Developpers of MUA's thinking, they must make the
> > Linuxpedants compatibel with BS ware from a proprietary OS.
> 
> ?? I don't get what you mean here. Do you mean that Thunderbird devs try
> to make TB compatible with Outlook? They certainly don't. Do you mean

I was on teh Mozilla and Thunderbird Lists (some other MUA's too)
and the trend is going into the direction of Windows stuff...

To make OUR Linux suitable for Windows-Switchers...

> that TB is BS? It certainly isn't. I don't have any idea what else you
> could mean.

I think, copying those Windows stuff is the false way.  I like to
code more strict based on RFC's not on some ideas of a proprietary
software which could be nice features.

What I want to say is, some peoples know allready abourt my MUA (GUI
already coded with basic functions) but those $USERS are Winnies,
and they claim I should code things, against RCF and all...

Those are only Windows Gadgets I have never used and never missed.
OK, I have put it onto a wishlist, but...

...you know, we are "hobby" coders and coding for fun and freedom.
I must work hard for my money and if someone wants a professionel
program, why not, but I need money to live (6000 Euro per month).

So, Mozilla-Mail and Thunderbird are implementing one feature after
one, but nothing realy wise.  Oh, I have a big wishlist for Mozilla
and Sisters, but if I post them, the Developers send me some jobles
russian KGB killers.  Maybe CIA and MOSSAD.

> cu,
> sven

Greetings
Michelle Konzack


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-03-20 14:37:53, schrieb MJ Ray:

> You mean like mutt, which does not respect standards and
> implements the buggy non-standard Mail-Followup-To, while not

The "Mail-Followup-To:" works perfectly.

> implementing standards like List-* headers? I'm ill-placed to

???  -  It works perfectly too.  Since years!

> submit that bug report because I don't use it. Why don't you?

Which Bug?

Greetings
Michelle Konzack


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Matthew R. Dempsky]

On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 10:40:02AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> It looks at which reply interface control was used. After all,
> it is user choice whether or not they honour the CC request.

That just offloads the burden of magically knowing whether the poster 
wanted a CC or not to the user.  Which header in your email should I 
examine to decide whether to press 'g' or 'L' in mutt?

> Anyway, how would the list server decide to set a wide MFT for
> a poster who wants a CC while not for one who doesn't, if
> neither were subscribed?

MFT is the poster's responsibility.  The list server shouldn't touch it.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Sven Mueller]

Michelle Konzack wrote on 18/03/2006 22:28:
> Am 2006-03-13 16:02:18, schrieb Margarita Manterola:
> 
>>Thunderbird is a very respected MUA.  There's a big group of people
>>who don't feel comfortable writing mails from mutt (or the like), and
>>I don't think it's such a good idea to take into account only people
>>who can use a console-client to be able to receive a reply on a
>>mailing-list.
> 
> I have troied to use Mozilla-Mail as well as Thunderbird, but those
> are crap, specialy if I try to read Mails offline and get HTML-Mails
> which try to download tonns of pics...

Huh? I do just that on a regular basis. And Thunderbird doesn't load
external pics from mails in either online or offline mode unless you
specifically ask it to do so. You probably didn't try TB for a long time.

>>We are not talking about developers, we are talking about anyone who
>>needs to send a mail to a mailing-list and get a reply.
> 
> I am developper and normal-user.  Encourage developers of MUA's to
> code List-Reply stuff...

If you are a developer, you can't also be a "normal user". You have
higher skills than the normal user.
I second urging devs to implement List-Reply stuff though. But I don't
recommend implementing M-F-T (though I don't advise against it either).

>>Also, it's not like we are discussing about mailers for a propietary
>>OS, but it's a free mailer that works inside Debian.
> 
> ...where some Developpers of MUA's thinking, they must make the
> Linuxpedants compatibel with BS ware from a proprietary OS.

?? I don't get what you mean here. Do you mean that Thunderbird devs try
to make TB compatible with Outlook? They certainly don't. Do you mean
that TB is BS? It certainly isn't. I don't have any idea what else you
could mean.

cu,
sven


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[MJ Ray]

"Matthew R. Dempsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 02:56:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > So, if mutt finally has List-Post support, what would munging
> > the non-standard MFT header onto all list posts add?
> 
> Two users post to a mailing list.  One is already subscribed and doesn't 
> want a CC.  The other is not subscribed and does want a CC.
> How does your MUA automatically figure this out using only standard 
> headers?

It looks at which reply interface control was used. After all,
it is user choice whether or not they honour the CC request.

Anyway, how would the list server decide to set a wide MFT for
a poster who wants a CC while not for one who doesn't, if
neither were subscribed? My question was: what would MFT
munging (=by the listserver) add?

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Matthew R. Dempsky]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 02:56:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> So, if mutt finally has List-Post support, what would munging
> the non-standard MFT header onto all list posts add?

Two users post to a mailing list.  One is already subscribed and doesn't 
want a CC.  The other is not subscribed and does want a CC.

How does your MUA automatically figure this out using only standard 
headers?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[MJ Ray]

Brett Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Interesting... how sure are you that mutt doesn't respect List-*
> headers? (It's been a lng time since I added any list config in my
> muttrc, it's not been anywhere near as long since I joined a new list,
> and weirdly "l" just works).

Not at all sure! It seems it was finally fixed in debian version
1.5.6-20040722+1 (CVS snapshot 20040722), closing Bug 49048.
I apologise for missing that - after four and a half years (four
of them upstream), I thought it was pretty much a wontfix.
I will update my notes.  Thanks for pointing it out. In return,
have a tip: if you define Bug and Closes: as firefox-based
browser bookmark keywords, then pasting "Bug 49048" or "Closes:
#49048" takes you to the report.

So, if mutt finally has List-Post support, what would munging
the non-standard MFT header onto all list posts add?

Puzzled,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Oleksandr Moskalenko]

* Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-18 22:44:13 +0100]:

> Am 2006-03-14 12:13:50, schrieb Manoj Srivastava:
> 
> > If these Jane/Joe users want a reliable copy of the message,
> >  then they should subscribe to the mailing list -- or hope that an
> >  explicit request for a CC is honored. Nothing actually guarantees a CC
> >  anyway -- but setting MFT increases their chances of a reply from
> >  people like me, whose MUA's are configures to honor an MFT.
> 
> Right and I think, all friendly $REPONDERS honor MFT.
> 
> I have "set Honor_Mail-Followup_to=yes" in mutt.
> 
> Greetings
> Michelle Konzack
> Systemadministrator
> Tamay Dogan Network
> Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
> 

Michelle,

Actually, it's "honor_followup_to". And according to the Mutt manual it is set
to yes by default.

http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-6.html#ss6.3

honor_followup_to

Type: quadoption
Default: yes

This variable controls whether or not a Mail-Followup-To header is honored when 
group-replying to a message. 

Regards,

Alex.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Brett Parker]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 02:37:53PM +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Feel free and write bugreports against those MUA's which lakes
> > of features and do not respect standards...  This will make
> > the life of GUI/Point-and-Click $USERS much easier...
> 
> You mean like mutt, which does not respect standards and
> implements the buggy non-standard Mail-Followup-To, while not
> implementing standards like List-* headers? I'm ill-placed to
> submit that bug report because I don't use it. Why don't you?

Interesting... how sure are you that mutt doesn't respect List-*
headers? (It's been a lng time since I added any list config in my
muttrc, it's not been anywhere near as long since I joined a new list,
and weirdly "l" just works).

Thanks,
Brett.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[MJ Ray]

Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Feel free and write bugreports against those MUA's which lakes
> of features and do not respect standards...  This will make
> the life of GUI/Point-and-Click $USERS much easier...

You mean like mutt, which does not respect standards and
implements the buggy non-standard Mail-Followup-To, while not
implementing standards like List-* headers? I'm ill-placed to
submit that bug report because I don't use it. Why don't you?
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Marc Haber]

On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 10:10:47PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> I am on the Debian mailinglists since 04/1999 and never had
> problems  with the lists.

Basically, it's usually the other way around.

> I do not know, what we can do with such thread

One resists the urge to participate.

Greetins
Ma "guilty as charged" rc

-- 
-
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |  lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-03-17 09:49:19, schrieb Matthias Julius:
> Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I'm still waiting for anyone to recommend a MUA which works on at least
> > Linux and Windows (yes, that evil OS), preferably also on MacOSX and
> > supports MFT.
> 
> Gnus.

Mutt

> Others might be available under Cygwin.

Hmmm, even this Eudora 3 which once used under
WfW 3.11 has done the job right.

Sorry, never used Win95, Win98, Win2000 or WinXP.
So I do not know about those OS.

> Matthias

Greetings
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  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-03-16 21:33:18, schrieb Sven Mueller:

> I'm still waiting for anyone to recommend a MUA which works on at least
> Linux and Windows (yes, that evil OS), preferably also on MacOSX and
> supports MFT.

You should use "mutt", which works on linux, BeOS, MacOSX and
since some time now on Win32 without the need of Cygwin.

Greetings
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  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-03-14 12:13:50, schrieb Manoj Srivastava:

> If these Jane/Joe users want a reliable copy of the message,
>  then they should subscribe to the mailing list -- or hope that an
>  explicit request for a CC is honored. Nothing actually guarantees a CC
>  anyway -- but setting MFT increases their chances of a reply from
>  people like me, whose MUA's are configures to honor an MFT.

Right and I think, all friendly $REPONDERS honor MFT.

I have "set Honor_Mail-Followup_to=yes" in mutt.

Greetings
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  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-03-13 20:20:00, schrieb Benjamin Seidenberg:

> How many Joe/Jane users do you think can handle the complexity and 
> different paradigm required by mutt? These mailers are easy to use, and 
> are well integrated into the desktop environment. Most importantly, they 
> offer GUI/Point-and-Click interfaces so that they are easy to use.

Feel free and write bugreports against those MUA's which lakes
of features and do not respect standards...  This will make
the life of GUI/Point-and-Click $USERS much easier...

Greetings
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  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-03-13 16:02:18, schrieb Margarita Manterola:

> Thunderbird is a very respected MUA.  There's a big group of people
> who don't feel comfortable writing mails from mutt (or the like), and
> I don't think it's such a good idea to take into account only people
> who can use a console-client to be able to receive a reply on a
> mailing-list.

Sorry Margarita, but now I am around 7 years on Debian lists (First
with Eudora 3 under WfW 3.11 and then Debian with mutt) and except
Copy-and-Past I miss nothing with mutt.

I have troied to use Mozilla-Mail as well as Thunderbird, but those
are crap, specialy if I try to read Mails offline and get HTML-Mails
which try to download tonns of pics...

> We are not talking about developers, we are talking about anyone who
> needs to send a mail to a mailing-list and get a reply.

I am developper and normal-user.  Encourage developers of MUA's to
code List-Reply stuff...

> Also, it's not like we are discussing about mailers for a propietary
> OS, but it's a free mailer that works inside Debian.

...where some Developpers of MUA's thinking, they must make the
Linuxpedants compatibel with BS ware from a proprietary OS.

> I think that we need to take a bit more consideration for people who
> are not so technically-able but that might still have something to
> say, or rather, something to get answers to.
> 
> Also, the list policy says that you don't send CCs by default, but
> that you'll send a CC if asked to, so I'd say it's pretty much our job
> to make sure that the mail goes where it should.

Right and never I have ask for Cc: because I am on 68 Debian Lists.

I get per day arround 20-40 Cc's which make my live hard to reply.
Specialy if $STUPIDUSER set me into Bcc: where I can not determiner
whether it is a Cc: or not.  Peoples sending unwanted Cc: to me
bother me and they can not expect an answer from me.

+---[ '/home/michelle.konzack/.procmail/FLT_cced' ]---
| 
| 
| # 
| # FLT_cced
| # 
| 
| 
| LOG=$TDPID"FLT_cced  : pass$NL"
| 
| :0
| * ^Envelope-to:.*(linux4michelle|sun4michelle)@freenet.de
| {
|   :0
|   * ^TO_.*(bind-users|lists.php.net|postgresql.org|lists.debian.org)
|   .ATTENTION.FLT_cced/
|   
|   :0
|   * ^TO_.*([EMAIL PROTECTED])
|   .ATTENTION.FLT_cced/
|   
|   :0
|   * ^TO_.*([EMAIL PROTECTED]|fvwm@fvwm.org)
|   .ATTENTION.FLT_cced/
| }
+-

Here I filter stuff from list where I know some stupid
peoples sending all the day tonns of Cc: to me...

Greetings
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  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-03-15 11:11:18, schrieb Wouter Verhelst:

> Whoa, then you must not like many mail clients.

:-)

> Manoj, there are little mail clients who allow to add arbitrary headers
> to mails. Really. The only exceptions are console-based clients, like
> mutt and gnus. I don't even think Pine can do it.

Hey, even 'mc' can do it!  ;-)

xedit+ssmtp can do the job to, but it requires to steps ot writing
a short bash script, which handel de esit status of ssmtp.

Greetings
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  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-03-13 11:05:50, schrieb Manoj Srivastava:

> > Thunderbird, as well as many other MUAs doesn't allow you to set
> > arbitrary headers, including M-F-T.
> 
> I guess it is time to move to a more capable MUA, no?

FullACK!

I am on the Debian mailinglists since 04/1999 and never had
problems  with the lists.  From 1999 to 2001 it was Eurora 3
(running under WfW 3.11) and then I was switching fully to
Debian and mutt.

I do not know, what we can do with such thread because some
MUA's are to stupid (mabe some $USERS to lazzy to configure
something correctly).

Greetings
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  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-03-11 02:42:27, schrieb Matthias Julius:

> I am using Gnus.  I have it setup to send followups to the list only.
> When I do a followup it goes to the list, a reply goes to the sender
> and a "very wide reply" goes to both.  I wonder what the group-reply
> command in mutt does.

r   Reply-To poster

l   Reply-To list

g   Reply to all recipients
which are in "To:", "Cc:", "From:", "Reply-To:" and
"Mail-Followup-To:".  If someone set Explicit Reply-To: she/he
maybe get two messages, because mutt put them into To: and Cc:

Greetings
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  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-03-03 19:28:50, schrieb Glenn Maynard:

> It's even worse with complex cross-posting, where several lists and several
> individuals are being copied.  Neither list-reply nor group-reply does the

Can you imagin, that peoples hate cros-postres?
Cross-Posting is DISCURAGED!!!

Greetings
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  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-03-11 01:34:09, schrieb Glenn Maynard:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 12:49:00AM -0500, Matthias Julius wrote:
> > Anyway, since MFT is not a formal standard does your MUA not have an
> > easy way to CC the sender?
> 
> Mutt has a configuration var somewhere to tell it whether to CC or not
> by default on list followups.  I have it set not to, and I have to add
> the CC manually if I want it.  I'm sure Mutt is capable enough that it's
> possible to bind a key to "enable CC, start list followup, revert CC"
> or something, but I'm not inclined to spend that much time bending over
> backwards to implement other people's preferences, when there's a well-
> known way for them to make it happen automatically.

mutt can:

set followup_to=yes (default in Debian)
set honor_followup_to=yes   (default in Debian)
set ignore_list_reply_to=no (default in Debian)
set reply_to=ask-yes(default in Debian)

Greetings
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  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[Michelle Konzack]

Hi John,

Am 2006-03-01 09:48:45, schrieb John H. Robinson, IV:

> In the signature would probably be poor, as the lowlighting would hide
> it, and who really reads the signatures, anyway? The best place is
> probably right before the signature. A simple one line things: Please cc
> me, I am not subscribed to the list.

This what the "Mail-Followup-To:" is for!

IF the Sender want a Reply, she/he shoud set this Header.

Greetings
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  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-03-02 04:25:27, schrieb Glenn Maynard:

> Just as a thought, I wonder if it's possible for the list software to
> automatically add an MFT header, if it's missing, indicating that only
> people not subscribed to the list, or explicitly in the CC list, should
> be CC'd.

The "Mail-Followup-To:" Header is FOR THEW SENDER
and not for the mailinglist!

Greetings
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  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Matthias Julius]

David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I still haven't seen any quoted/referenced reason that makes sense.
> Then again, it might not ever become a standard, but it's the best
> solution for the problem existing.  Until someone comes up with
> something better, I'll go with M-F-T (not that I use it myself, since
> I'm subscribed to the lists already, and I get too much email anyway
> to want any copies - the all too common crossposting is bad enough
> as it is...)

This is why you should set your MFT to the list.  If someone replies
with a MUA that honors MFT you will not get a CC even if the MUA
normally would send you one.

Matthias


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Sven Mueller]

David Weinehall wrote on 17/03/2006 08:53:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 09:33:18PM +0100, Sven Mueller wrote:
> 
>>David Weinehall wrote on 13/03/2006 18:32:
>>
>>>you can also do a little prefs hackery:
>>>
>>>http://www.semergence.com/archives/2004/12/09/09/07/
>>
> http://kb.mozillazine.org/Custom_headers
> 
> Rather indicates that you can add headers to the list of *available*
> headers using that hack, and then change the settings / mail.

Indeed. Weird, I know I had checked it before I wrote my mail and it
didn't seem to work as you proposed at that time. However, checking
again now shows it does work (this is true for both the prefs hack and
the mnenhy approach).

Sorry to have created confusion and thanks for rectifying my mistakes.

>>I'm still waiting for anyone to recommend a MUA which works on at least
>>Linux and Windows (yes, that evil OS), preferably also on MacOSX and
>>supports MFT.
> 
> Do you have any particular need to use the same MUA for all platforms?

Yes, due to several reasons, both in private and professional
environments, I frequently have to change platforms. It makes life a lot
easier to use the same mail client on all of them (especially together
with IMAP).

>>Apart from the fact that MFT still isn't a standard and might just as
>>well never be, for several reason already quoted/referenced by others in
>>this thread.
> 
> I still haven't seen any quoted/referenced reason that makes sense.

MFT doesn't really solve the problems it tries to solve.
1) It tries to allow automatic follow-ups to go to the right choice
   of addresses, but it doesn't add anything the List-Post didn't
   already add.
2) It only works for the first level of replies, since no MUA I know of
   preserves its contents across replies.
MFT's name implies some similarity with the Followup-To header in
newsgroups. If it would work like that one, it might get better support
IMHO.

> Then again, it might not ever become a standard, but it's the best
> solution for the problem existing.  Until someone comes up with
> something better, I'll go with M-F-T (not that I use it myself, since
> I'm subscribed to the lists already, and I get too much email anyway
> to want any copies - the all too common crossposting is bad enough
> as it is...)

I agree wholeheartedly. And actually, I receive that many CCs from
long-time-DDs for posts on Debian lists that I really wonder how many
DDs don't even know the policies in place for Debian lists. Thanks to
your hints regarding thunderbird, I might be able to avoid some of them
by setting MFT to the right mailinglist now.

regards,
Sven


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 09:33:18PM +0100, Sven Mueller wrote:
> I'm still waiting for anyone to recommend a MUA which works on at least
> Linux and Windows (yes, that evil OS), preferably also on MacOSX and
> supports MFT.

http://www.geocities.com/win32mutt/win32.html

-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Matthias Julius]

Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm still waiting for anyone to recommend a MUA which works on at least
> Linux and Windows (yes, that evil OS), preferably also on MacOSX and
> supports MFT.

Gnus.

Others might be available under Cygwin.

Matthias


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[David Weinehall]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 09:33:18PM +0100, Sven Mueller wrote:
> David Weinehall wrote on 13/03/2006 18:32:
> >>Thunderbird, as well as many other MUAs doesn't allow you to set 
> >>arbitrary headers, including M-F-T.
> > 
> > There are plugins for Thunderbird that solves that (mnehy, for
> > instance);
> 
> Would like to _any_ extension/plugin which really solves that (or, btw
> would implement list-reply). mnehy doesn't.

http://mnenhy.mozdev.org/customheaders.html

"Composition
These headers are shown in the headers dropdownbox when composing new
messages; customizations are stored in the user_pref
mail.compose.other.header."

Kind of indicates that you can set headers based on a per email
setting in mnehy, wouldn't you say?

> > you can also do a little prefs hackery:
> > 
> > http://www.semergence.com/archives/2004/12/09/09/07/
> 
> Just checked.
> Nice hack. (Not)
> You realize that the hack you referenced doesn't work for the target
> given? It adds a custom header to _every_ post made from an
> account/identity. In other words, it would require to set up a new
> account/identity for every different setting of M-F-T one wants to use.
> Unless you wanted to do the hack over and over again (find the post to
> reply to, stop thunderbird, edit the prefs, start thunderbird, reply,
> stop thunderbird, remove prefs-hack, start thunderbird, continue reading
> -- great).

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Custom_headers

Rather indicates that you can add headers to the list of *available*
headers using that hack, and then change the settings / mail.

But just to be sure I installed mozilla-thunderbird on my machine.
And indeed, this adds another header to the list of headers available
when composing the e-mail.

> I'm still waiting for anyone to recommend a MUA which works on at least
> Linux and Windows (yes, that evil OS), preferably also on MacOSX and
> supports MFT.

Do you have any particular need to use the same MUA for all platforms?

> Apart from the fact that MFT still isn't a standard and might just as
> well never be, for several reason already quoted/referenced by others in
> this thread.

I still haven't seen any quoted/referenced reason that makes sense.
Then again, it might not ever become a standard, but it's the best
solution for the problem existing.  Until someone comes up with
something better, I'll go with M-F-T (not that I use it myself, since
I'm subscribed to the lists already, and I get too much email anyway
to want any copies - the all too common crossposting is bad enough
as it is...)


Regards: David
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window   (\
//  ~   //  Diamond-white roses of fire //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/   Beautiful hoar-frost   (/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Sven Mueller]

David Weinehall wrote on 13/03/2006 18:32:
>>Thunderbird, as well as many other MUAs doesn't allow you to set 
>>arbitrary headers, including M-F-T.
> 
> There are plugins for Thunderbird that solves that (mnehy, for
> instance);

Would like to _any_ extension/plugin which really solves that (or, btw
would implement list-reply). mnehy doesn't.

> you can also do a little prefs hackery:
> 
> http://www.semergence.com/archives/2004/12/09/09/07/

Just checked.
Nice hack. (Not)
You realize that the hack you referenced doesn't work for the target
given? It adds a custom header to _every_ post made from an
account/identity. In other words, it would require to set up a new
account/identity for every different setting of M-F-T one wants to use.
Unless you wanted to do the hack over and over again (find the post to
reply to, stop thunderbird, edit the prefs, start thunderbird, reply,
stop thunderbird, remove prefs-hack, start thunderbird, continue reading
-- great).

I'm still waiting for anyone to recommend a MUA which works on at least
Linux and Windows (yes, that evil OS), preferably also on MacOSX and
supports MFT.
Apart from the fact that MFT still isn't a standard and might just as
well never be, for several reason already quoted/referenced by others in
this thread.

cu,
sven

PS: Sorry for the seperate emails / initial private reply, didn't know
earlier that I would have the time to check the reference in more detail.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Matthias Julius]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On 15 Mar 2006, Matthias Julius verbalised:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I do know how to use Gnus, thanks. 
>>
>> I am sorry if I have insulted you.  I did not want to suggest you
>> don't know how to use your MUA.  But, how do I know?
>
> Please do apt0cache show gnus | grep Maintainer:

Ohh, that explains it.  I guess I really didn't need to tell you then.

Matthias

PS: Thank you for doing that.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 15 Mar 2006, Wouter Verhelst stated:

> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 12:22:46PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On 13 Mar 2006, Margarita Manterola stated:
>>
>>> On 3/13/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 On 11 Mar 2006, Benjamin Seidenberg stated:
> Thunderbird, as well as many other MUAs doesn't allow you to set
> arbitrary headers, including M-F-T.
 I guess it is time to move to a more capable MUA, no?
>>>
>>> Thunderbird is a very respected MUA.
>>
>> Not universally. Specifically, not by me. If it can't add
>> headers to a mail, it is definitely lacking in features.
>
> Whoa, then you must not like many mail clients.

I do have high standards/

> Manoj, there are little mail clients who allow to add arbitrary
> headers to mails. Really. The only exceptions are console-based
> clients, like mutt and gnus. I don't even think Pine can do it.

Err,  what makes you think that Gnus and VM are "console
 based"? I can click on things , images can be displayed in line, or,
 with a right click, disposed of other wise, I can click on buttons to
 run gpg to verify sigs. I even have drop down menus and context
 sensitive mouse binding, multiple windows, a separate reply window
 pops up -- if this is a console, then I fail to see what else anyone
 can have.

Secondly, yes, pine can do it.

manoj
-- 
"Fuckin' A!  Purple Haze!!!" Louie Gonzalez, Geometry class, 1973
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 15 Mar 2006, Matthias Julius verbalised:

> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I do know how to use Gnus, thanks. 
>
> I am sorry if I have insulted you.  I did not want to suggest you
> don't know how to use your MUA.  But, how do I know?

Please do apt0cache show gnus | grep Maintainer:

> Nobody's perfect.  I doubt there is anyone who knows all commands in
> Gnus.

Err, there are not that many. And I started using Gnus since
 circa '93, about 13 years ago, when it was called GNUS.

>> It is whether I notice the request for a CC, and whether I ma
>> paying enough attention to override my fingers, which have a muscle
>> memory and a mind of their own.
>
> It sounded like you have to hand craft the Cc header every time.

My fingers automatically hit F, not Sv.

manoj
-- 
Writing free verse is like playing tennis with the net down.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Russ Allbery]

Matthias Julius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> I do know how to use Gnus, thanks. 

> I am sorry if I have insulted you.  I did not want to suggest you don't
> know how to use your MUA.  But, how do I know?  Nobody's perfect.  I
> doubt there is anyone who knows all commands in Gnus.

windlord:~> apt-cache show gnus | grep Maintainer
Maintainer: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

:)

>>  It is whether I notice the request for a CC, and whether I ma paying
>>  enough attention to override my fingers, which have a muscle memory
>>  and a mind of their own.

> It sounded like you have to hand craft the Cc header every time.

I frequently hand-craft the Cc header just because it's fast and I never
got around to automating the correct rules.  Every once in a while, I do
another pass of automating things that are in muscle memory, but there are
always more.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 12:13:50PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Err, who said anything about mutt? I have never used that
>  program, since when I tested it out I found it kinda under powered,
>  and lacked extensibility.

Sir, your insult cannot go unremarked! I demand satisfaction and do
forthwith challenge you to a duel, at noon in Oaxtepec. Name your
second and your weapon and prepare for your error to be shown, or
in cowardice and dishonour acknowledge your error immediately!

Viva le mutt!

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Matthias Julius]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I do know how to use Gnus, thanks. 

I am sorry if I have insulted you.  I did not want to suggest you
don't know how to use your MUA.  But, how do I know?  Nobody's
perfect.  I doubt there is anyone who knows all commands in Gnus.

>  It is whether I notice the request for a CC, and whether I ma
>  paying enough attention to override my fingers, which have a muscle
>  memory and a mind of their own.

It sounded like you have to hand craft the Cc header every time.

Matthias


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Manoj, there are little mail clients who allow to add arbitrary headers
> to mails. Really. The only exceptions are console-based clients, like

IMO the proper and mature MUAs all do.  The immature ones (particullary
those which focus on bells-and-whistles first, and real MUA functionality
later), and the crap (which is about 99% of the MUAs out there) rarely do.

> mutt and gnus. I don't even think Pine can do it.

I may not like Pine as a MUA at all, but like all proper and mature MUAs
(just because I dislike it doesn't mean it is a bad MUA) it *certainly* does
support custom headers.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[David Weinehall]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 11:11:18AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 12:22:46PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On 13 Mar 2006, Margarita Manterola stated:
> > 
> > > On 3/13/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> On 11 Mar 2006, Benjamin Seidenberg stated:
> > >>> Thunderbird, as well as many other MUAs doesn't allow you to set
> > >>> arbitrary headers, including M-F-T.
> > >> I guess it is time to move to a more capable MUA, no?
> > >
> > > Thunderbird is a very respected MUA.
> > 
> > Not universally. Specifically, not by me. If it can't add
> >  headers to a mail, it is definitely lacking in features.
> 
> Whoa, then you must not like many mail clients.
> 
> Manoj, there are little mail clients who allow to add arbitrary headers
> to mails. Really. The only exceptions are console-based clients, like
> mutt and gnus. I don't even think Pine can do it.

Very first hit on google with the search terms
"pine custom headers" yields:

http://www.helpdesk.umd.edu/topics/applications/email/pine/397/


Regards: David Weinehall
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window   (\
//  ~   //  Diamond-white roses of fire //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/   Beautiful hoar-frost   (/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 12:22:46PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2006, Margarita Manterola stated:
> 
> > On 3/13/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 11 Mar 2006, Benjamin Seidenberg stated:
> >>> Thunderbird, as well as many other MUAs doesn't allow you to set
> >>> arbitrary headers, including M-F-T.
> >> I guess it is time to move to a more capable MUA, no?
> >
> > Thunderbird is a very respected MUA.
> 
> Not universally. Specifically, not by me. If it can't add
>  headers to a mail, it is definitely lacking in features.

Whoa, then you must not like many mail clients.

Manoj, there are little mail clients who allow to add arbitrary headers
to mails. Really. The only exceptions are console-based clients, like
mutt and gnus. I don't even think Pine can do it.

-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 14 Mar 2006, Matthias Julius spake thusly:

> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If I notice the request, and don't feel disinclined, I may add a
>> CC. My "consideration" for their handicaps stops when such
>> consideration turns out to be to much of a bother at the
>> moment. What about consideration for my time and effort?
>
> It shouldn't take you much time and effort.  In Gnus just do a "very
> wide reply" (S v or S V).


I do know how to use Gnus, thanks. It is whether I notice the
 request for a CC, and whether I ma paying enough attention to
 override my fingers, which have a muscle memory and a mind of their
 own.

manoj
-- 
Nothing matters very much, and few things matter at all. Arthur
Balfour
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Matthias Julius]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Quite. My MUA makes the former automated, and the latter is
>  manually adding a CC, which, while not difficult, is still a manual
>  action. 

See my other post.

> I really don't care.  I don't ask for private CC's; if I want
>  an answer, I join the list, or follow it on gmane, or otherwise do
>  not add to the burden of people I am asking help or input from.

You seem to care somewhat.  Otherwise you wouldn't bother with this
discussion here.

>
> I am just helpfully pointing out to people who want a CC that
>  adding a MFT would get them what they want from people with MUA's
>  like mine.

That's good.  I just don't like when somebody says "I don't CC you.
If you want a CC add a MFT header!"

Matthias


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Matthias Julius]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> If I notice the request, and don't feel disinclined, I may add
>  a CC. My "consideration" for their handicaps stops when  such
>  consideration turns out to be to much of a bother at the moment. What
>  about consideration for my time and effort?

It shouldn't take you much time and effort.  In Gnus just do a "very
wide reply" (S v or S V).

Matthias


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 13 Mar 2006, Margarita Manterola stated:

> On 3/13/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 11 Mar 2006, Benjamin Seidenberg stated:
>>> Thunderbird, as well as many other MUAs doesn't allow you to set
>>> arbitrary headers, including M-F-T.
>> I guess it is time to move to a more capable MUA, no?
>
> Thunderbird is a very respected MUA.

Not universally. Specifically, not by me. If it can't add
 headers to a mail, it is definitely lacking in features.

> There's a big group of people who don't feel comfortable writing
> mails from mutt (or the like), and I don't think it's such a good
> idea to take into account only people who can use a console-client
> to be able to receive a reply on a mailing-list.

These people who do not feel like using a MUA which can add
 and MFT shall sometimes miss out a CC from me. Getting a CC, as I
 have said elsewhere, is not a right.

> We are not talking about developers, we are talking about anyone who
> needs to send a mail to a mailing-list and get a reply.

So add an MFT header, and your chances improve. If you don't
 feel like doing so, well, it is, after all, your decision.

> Also, it's not like we are discussing about mailers for a propietary
> OS, but it's a free mailer that works inside Debian.

So what? Just because a piece of software is free does not
 mean it is defect free, or even eminently laudable. If it can't add
 an MFT, well, hey, in some cases that means the difference between a
 CC and none.

> I think that we need to take a bit more consideration for people who
> are not so technically-able but that might still have something to
> say, or rather, something to get answers to.

If I notice the request, and don't feel disinclined, I may add
 a CC. My "consideration" for their handicaps stops when  such
 consideration turns out to be to much of a bother at the moment. What
 about consideration for my time and effort?

> Also, the list policy says that you don't send CCs by default, but
> that you'll send a CC if asked to, so I'd say it's pretty much our
> job to make sure that the mail goes where it should.

Wrong. The statement is "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." That does not mean you
 must send a copy when asked. If A intersection ! B is the null set,
 it does not imply A == B.

manoj
-- 
You will be successful in your work.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 13 Mar 2006, Matthias Julius told this:

> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It is unacceptable to people who want a CC? They are the ones
>> asking for a favour. If they want  a special treatment, different
>> from the default mailing list policy, either they put that favour
>> request in a manner I am going to respond to, or they do not get a
>> CC. As simple as that.
>
> And there is nothing wrong with that.  There is no policy that
> requires you to honor this request.  It is your decision.
>
>>
>> My MUA shall respect MFT headers, so people shall get CC's if
>> they set it. If they say something in the body, since it is not
>> automated, it depends on whether I notice it, and am inclined to do
>> them the favour or not. It's a crap shoot.
>
> I agree a note in the body is not reliable.  But, MFT isn't neither.
> At least my MUA makes it very easy to follow the request for CC.

Quite. My MUA makes the former automated, and the latter is
 manually adding a CC, which, while not difficult, is still a manual
 action. 

> Anyway, how big is the problem?  In the last two weeks I havn't
> noticed any post to the Debian lists I read that requested a private
> CC.

> If you'd like so much for MFT to become widely accepted you should
> lobby for it to become formal standard.

I really don't care.  I don't ask for private CC's; if I want
 an answer, I join the list, or follow it on gmane, or otherwise do
 not add to the burden of people I am asking help or input from.

I am just helpfully pointing out to people who want a CC that
 adding a MFT would get them what they want from people with MUA's
 like mine.

manoj
-- 
QOTD: "Like this rose, our love will wilt and die."
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 13 Mar 2006, Benjamin Seidenberg uttered the following:

> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> I guess it is time to move to a more capable MUA, no?
>>
>> manoj
>>
>>
> How many Joe/Jane users do you think can handle the complexity and
> different paradigm required by mutt?

Err, who said anything about mutt? I have never used that
 program, since when I tested it out I found it kinda under powered,
 and lacked extensibility.

> These mailers are easy to use, and are well integrated into the
> desktop environment. Most importantly, they offer
> GUI/Point-and-Click interfaces so that they are easy to use.

If these Jane/Joe users want a reliable copy of the message,
 then they should subscribe to the mailing list -- or hope that an
 explicit request for a CC is honored. Nothing actually guarantees a CC
 anyway -- but setting MFT increases their chances of a reply from
 people like me, whose MUA's are configures to honor an MFT.


> David Weinehall wrote:
>
>>
>> There are plugins for Thunderbird that solves that (mnehy, for
>> instance); you can also do a little prefs hackery:
>>
> Again, how many Joe users are going to install extensions or mess
> around with their prefs.js to set up arbitrary headers ("headers?
> what are those")? This sort of thing has to work out of the box for
> everyone.

I am personally not very interested in people who are
 unwilling to learn how to use their tools, and expect me to ask how
 high when they sa jump.

If you are unwilling to learn how to set a MFT, get used to
 sometimes missing out a CC from me.  Getting  a CC is not an
 entitlement.

manoj
-- 
Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Benjamin Seidenberg]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:


   I guess it is time to move to a more capable MUA, no?

   manoj
 

How many Joe/Jane users do you think can handle the complexity and 
different paradigm required by mutt? These mailers are easy to use, and 
are well integrated into the desktop environment. Most importantly, they 
offer GUI/Point-and-Click interfaces so that they are easy to use.


(I want to set up mutt eventually, but I don't have the time to relearn 
mail at the mmomment. Perhaps this summer).



David Weinehall wrote:



There are plugins for Thunderbird that solves that (mnehy, for
instance); you can also do a little prefs hackery:

Again, how many Joe users are going to install extensions or mess around 
with their prefs.js to set up arbitrary headers ("headers? what are 
those")? This sort of thing has to work out of the box for everyone.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Matthias Julius]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> It is unacceptable to people who want a CC? They are the ones
>  asking for a favour. If they want  a special treatment, different
>  from the default mailing list policy, either they put that favour
>  request in a manner I am going to respond to, or they do not get a
>  CC. As simple as that.

And there is nothing wrong with that.  There is no policy that
requires you to honor this request.  It is your decision.

>
> My MUA shall respect MFT headers, so people shall get CC's if
>  they set it. If they say something in the body, since it is not
>  automated, it depends on whether I notice it, and am inclined to do
>  them the favour or not. It's a crap shoot.

I agree a note in the body is not reliable.  But, MFT isn't neither.
At least my MUA makes it very easy to follow the request for CC.

Anyway, how big is the problem?  In the last two weeks I havn't
noticed any post to the Debian lists I read that requested a private
CC.

If you'd like so much for MFT to become widely accepted you should
lobby for it to become formal standard.

Matthias


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Margarita Manterola]

On 3/13/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2006, Benjamin Seidenberg stated:
> > Thunderbird, as well as many other MUAs doesn't allow you to set
> > arbitrary headers, including M-F-T.
> I guess it is time to move to a more capable MUA, no?

Thunderbird is a very respected MUA.  There's a big group of people
who don't feel comfortable writing mails from mutt (or the like), and
I don't think it's such a good idea to take into account only people
who can use a console-client to be able to receive a reply on a
mailing-list.

We are not talking about developers, we are talking about anyone who
needs to send a mail to a mailing-list and get a reply.

Also, it's not like we are discussing about mailers for a propietary
OS, but it's a free mailer that works inside Debian.

I think that we need to take a bit more consideration for people who
are not so technically-able but that might still have something to
say, or rather, something to get answers to.

Also, the list policy says that you don't send CCs by default, but
that you'll send a CC if asked to, so I'd say it's pretty much our job
to make sure that the mail goes where it should.

--
Besos,
Marga

Re: Private copies of list replies

[David Weinehall]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 12:11:01PM -0500, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 
> >
> >I'm also failing to see any reasons people would *not* set M-F-T if they
> >want CCs (or if they specifically don't; Debian lists aside, most other
> >lists have no such policy).  I'm not charged for email on a per-header
> >basis; there's no drawback to setting it.
> > 
> >
> Thunderbird, as well as many other MUAs doesn't allow you to set 
> arbitrary headers, including M-F-T.

There are plugins for Thunderbird that solves that (mnehy, for
instance); you can also do a little prefs hackery:

http://www.semergence.com/archives/2004/12/09/09/07/


Regards: David
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window   (\
//  ~   //  Diamond-white roses of fire //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/   Beautiful hoar-frost   (/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 12 Mar 2006, MJ Ray told this:

> Apply your expectations to yourself. Don't push the work to handle
> your mail client's exceptional support for a non-standard buggy
> header onto everyone who requests a CC. It's unacceptable.


It is unacceptable to people who want a CC? They are the ones
 asking for a favour. If they want  a special treatment, different
 from the default mailing list policy, either they put that favour
 request in a manner I am going to respond to, or they do not get a
 CC. As simple as that.

My MUA shall respect MFT headers, so people shall get CC's if
 they set it. If they say something in the body, since it is not
 automated, it depends on whether I notice it, and am inclined to do
 them the favour or not. It's a crap shoot.

manoj
-- 
"Rage is a wind that blows out the candle of reason." Author Unknown
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 11 Mar 2006, Benjamin Seidenberg stated:

> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm also failing to see any reasons people would *not* set M-F-T if
>> they want CCs (or if they specifically don't; Debian lists aside,
>> most other lists have no such policy).  I'm not charged for email
>> on a per-header basis; there's no drawback to setting it.
>>
>>
> Thunderbird, as well as many other MUAs doesn't allow you to set
> arbitrary headers, including M-F-T.


I guess it is time to move to a more capable MUA, no?

manoj
-- 
X-rated movies are all alike ... the only thing they leave to the
imagination is the plot.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[Benjamin Seidenberg]

Glenn Maynard wrote:


On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 07:56:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
 


I continue to think that you have not read the DRUMS discussions.
No insult is meant, but you show no signs of having done so.
   



I read the messages you linked.  They complained that it's not a standard
and asserted, without explanation, that it's better to do it in the body
of the message.  (Obviously, I didn't read the entire threads; like you,
I have limited time--and, for the present, decreasing motivation--to
devote to this topic.)

 


It's not much extra time messing with headers by pressing
a different reply key, compared with you expecting users of
most mail clients to do hard/impossible header manipulations.
   



I don't find setting headers hard.
 

You don't use Thunderbird, Evolution, Kmail, most of the GUI based 
FOSS mail clients.


 


Apply your expectations to yourself. Don't push the work to handle
your mail client's exceptional support for a non-standard buggy
header onto everyone who requests a CC. It's unacceptable.
   



It's the other user that wants to be treated special, so it's their
job to make that happen.

 

Except most mail clients ignore M-F-T anyway, so setting the header 
doesn't help in a lot of cases.



I frequently post to lists that I am not subscribed to and don't
want a CC for. I either get the messages through a remailer or
another access method (NNTP, web archives later, and so on).
Your proposal does the wrong thing for anyone reading via
linux.* or gmane and probably many others, irrespective of the
usual MFT brokenness.
   



If you're not subscribed and don't want copies anyway, set your own MFT
header saying so, which would prevent the list from guessing otherwise.
If the user has set MFT explicitly, the list should probably not mess
with it.

 


True.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 07:56:42PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I continue to think that you have not read the DRUMS discussions.
> No insult is meant, but you show no signs of having done so.

I read the messages you linked.  They complained that it's not a standard
and asserted, without explanation, that it's better to do it in the body
of the message.  (Obviously, I didn't read the entire threads; like you,
I have limited time--and, for the present, decreasing motivation--to
devote to this topic.)

> It's not much extra time messing with headers by pressing
> a different reply key, compared with you expecting users of
> most mail clients to do hard/impossible header manipulations.

I don't find setting headers hard.

> Apply your expectations to yourself. Don't push the work to handle
> your mail client's exceptional support for a non-standard buggy
> header onto everyone who requests a CC. It's unacceptable.

It's the other user that wants to be treated special, so it's their
job to make that happen.

> I frequently post to lists that I am not subscribed to and don't
> want a CC for. I either get the messages through a remailer or
> another access method (NNTP, web archives later, and so on).
> Your proposal does the wrong thing for anyone reading via
> linux.* or gmane and probably many others, irrespective of the
> usual MFT brokenness.

If you're not subscribed and don't want copies anyway, set your own MFT
header saying so, which would prevent the list from guessing otherwise.
If the user has set MFT explicitly, the list should probably not mess
with it.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[Matthew R. Dempsky]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 07:56:20PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I frequently post to lists that I am not subscribed to and don't
> want a CC for. I either get the messages through a remailer or
> another access method (NNTP, web archives later, and so on).

I don't see how that differs from being subscribed to a list for 
purposes of automatic M-F-T generation.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[MJ Ray]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 09:35:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > 
> > Sorry, I still think you seem not to have
> > followed the references. There are reasons why
> > draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt wasn't accepted. I
> > will not present them again here, because we are already a bit
> > tangential. The bottom line is that MFT is not good enough.
> 
> I read the messages at the links you provided.  They provided no insight
> into why you don't like MFT; your (rather insulting) assertion that I
> must not have read it doesn't change that. [...]

I continue to think that you have not read the DRUMS discussions.
No insult is meant, but you show no signs of having done so.

> > Cross-posting should be discouraged and harder than the default,
> > don't you think?
> 
> No, cross-posting should not be made artificially difficult and harder
> to do correctly.  Don't make *me* spend extra time messing with headers
> every time I want to reply to someone else's cross-posted thread.

It's not much extra time messing with headers by pressing
a different reply key, compared with you expecting users of
most mail clients to do hard/impossible header manipulations.

> > In other words: you are wrong that it's my job to hint to your mailer,
> > if that means guessing how it implements which non-standard headers.
> 
> It is your job to set MFT if you want my mailer to treat you differently
> than everyone else, such as if you want to receive CCs on list posts.
> If you don't, and instead just say "CC me on replies" in the message,
> you're pushing the work to handle your exceptional case onto everyone else
> on the list, which is unacceptable.  That's why, as I said, I only comply
> with such requests once, to point people to MFT (at least, unless I really
> want to talk to that person).

Apply your expectations to yourself. Don't push the work to handle
your mail client's exceptional support for a non-standard buggy
header onto everyone who requests a CC. It's unacceptable.

> > Further, MFT exacerbates that accidental-cc problem.

I disagreed with your reading of this, but I'm not correcting it now.

> > What possible automated values would you set in MFT which
> > would include only mailing lists? The only ways I can see that
> > lists.debian.org could add your preferred MFT when none was sent
> > are to either build an index of all mailing list addresses or
> > to probe -request addresses. If it was only to include the list
> > forwarding the request, it would just be a List-Post duplicate.
> 
> My original suggestion was that it include all addresses in the To: and Cc:
> headers, except for those which are subscribed to the list.
> 
> That's imperfect, as I acknowledged from the beginning, but it does seem
> like an improvement.  (Of course, I suggested it with the hope that others
> might be able to refine it.)

I frequently post to lists that I am not subscribed to and don't
want a CC for. I either get the messages through a remailer or
another access method (NNTP, web archives later, and so on).
Your proposal does the wrong thing for anyone reading via
linux.* or gmane and probably many others, irrespective of the
usual MFT brokenness.

Hope that explains it,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Benjamin Seidenberg]

Glenn Maynard wrote:



I'm also failing to see any reasons people would *not* set M-F-T if they
want CCs (or if they specifically don't; Debian lists aside, most other
lists have no such policy).  I'm not charged for email on a per-header
basis; there's no drawback to setting it.
 

Thunderbird, as well as many other MUAs doesn't allow you to set 
arbitrary headers, including M-F-T.


HTH,
Benjamin


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Matthias Julius]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Mutt has a configuration var somewhere to tell it whether to CC or not
> by default on list followups.  I have it set not to, and I have to add
> the CC manually if I want it.  I'm sure Mutt is capable enough that it's
> possible to bind a key to "enable CC, start list followup, revert CC"
> or something, but I'm not inclined to spend that much time bending over
> backwards to implement other people's preferences, when there's a well-
> known way for them to make it happen automatically.

I am using Gnus.  I have it setup to send followups to the list only.
When I do a followup it goes to the list, a reply goes to the sender
and a "very wide reply" goes to both.  I wonder what the group-reply
command in mutt does.

>
> I'm also failing to see any reasons people would *not* set M-F-T if they
> want CCs (or if they specifically don't; Debian lists aside, most other
> lists have no such policy).  I'm not charged for email on a per-header
> basis; there's no drawback to setting it.

A simple reason could be that it is not supported by their MUA.

>
> The fact that it's "not a formal standard" isn't interesting to me; it'd
> be nice if it was, but that's all.

I agree that it would be nice.  But, due to the fact that it is not a
formal standard you can not expect everybody's MUA to support it.

This should not prevent you from promoting MFT. ;-)  Only until it is
a standard it is not an universal solution.

Matthias


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Glenn Maynard]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 12:49:00AM -0500, Matthias Julius wrote:
> Anyway, since MFT is not a formal standard does your MUA not have an
> easy way to CC the sender?

Mutt has a configuration var somewhere to tell it whether to CC or not
by default on list followups.  I have it set not to, and I have to add
the CC manually if I want it.  I'm sure Mutt is capable enough that it's
possible to bind a key to "enable CC, start list followup, revert CC"
or something, but I'm not inclined to spend that much time bending over
backwards to implement other people's preferences, when there's a well-
known way for them to make it happen automatically.

I'm also failing to see any reasons people would *not* set M-F-T if they
want CCs (or if they specifically don't; Debian lists aside, most other
lists have no such policy).  I'm not charged for email on a per-header
basis; there's no drawback to setting it.

The fact that it's "not a formal standard" isn't interesting to me; it'd
be nice if it was, but that's all.  That doesn't suddenly make it my job
to manually adjust mails for other people's personal preferences.  The
options, as I see them, are "use the header" or "don't receive CCs on mail".
"Expect others to do extra work for your sole benefit because you refuse
to use M-F-T" is not a reasonable option.

I agree that it would have been better as "X-Mail-Followup-To".

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Matthias Julius]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> We're talking about the case of people who want to be treated exceptionally;
> on Debian lists, those are people who *do* want to receive CC's on replies.
> (The original topic of the tangent, of having the list also tweak MFT to
> help specify list policies, was lost a couple messages back.)  Note marked
> text: "requests to CC", not "requests to not CC".

Ooops, I guess I should open my eyes better.

Anyway, since MFT is not a formal standard does your MUA not have an
easy way to CC the sender?

Matthias


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Glenn Maynard]

On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 10:58:35PM -0500, Matthias Julius wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I don't consider it my responsibility to *manually* adjust each of my
> > replies to suit the preferences of the person I'm replying to, which is
> > why I don't always honor requests to CC.  Instead, I let people know how
 ^^
> > they can express their preference in a way that many people's mailers
> > will be able to handle automatically.  If they can't be bothered to
> > tweak a header to make their preference happen, then I sure can't, either.
> 
> The Debian mailing list Code of conuct at
> http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/index.en.html states:
> 
> ,
> | 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.
> `
> 
> So everyone should set his MUA to only send replies to the list by
> default.

We're talking about the case of people who want to be treated exceptionally;
on Debian lists, those are people who *do* want to receive CC's on replies.
(The original topic of the tangent, of having the list also tweak MFT to
help specify list policies, was lost a couple messages back.)  Note marked
text: "requests to CC", not "requests to not CC".

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Matthias Julius]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I don't consider it my responsibility to *manually* adjust each of my
> replies to suit the preferences of the person I'm replying to, which is
> why I don't always honor requests to CC.  Instead, I let people know how
> they can express their preference in a way that many people's mailers
> will be able to handle automatically.  If they can't be bothered to
> tweak a header to make their preference happen, then I sure can't, either.

The Debian mailing list Code of conuct at
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/index.en.html states:

,
| 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.
`

So everyone should set his MUA to only send replies to the list by
default.

Matthias


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 02:45:47PM +0100, Sven Mueller wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote on 07/03/2006 01:05:
> > It is your job to set MFT if you want my mailer to treat you differently
> > than everyone else, such as if you want to receive CCs on list posts.
> 
> Why? MFT isn't an accepted standard. It also isn't implemented in too
> many MUAs (mozilla/thunderbird just being one example) because it wasn't
> accepted as a standard. So why on earth should I manually set that
> header (and in the thunderbird case, I can't even do so without major
> patching and tweaking)?
> 
> I don't say that the idea behind MFT is a bad idea (actually, many
> aspects of it _do_ make sense), but until it is accepted as a standard,
> it is (IMHO) stupid to ask people to tweak their MUAs to set and handle it.

It's the only automated way of expressing this preference.

I don't consider it my responsibility to *manually* adjust each of my
replies to suit the preferences of the person I'm replying to, which is
why I don't always honor requests to CC.  Instead, I let people know how
they can express their preference in a way that many people's mailers
will be able to handle automatically.  If they can't be bothered to
tweak a header to make their preference happen, then I sure can't, either.

> Why do you expect people to support a non-standard header? Actually you
> are even trying to force them so use it (even if you possibly don't do
> so intentionally). That's - again - stupid IMHO.

I'm not forcing them to do anything.  I'm saying: if you want my mailer
to treat you special, then say so in a way that allows it to be automated.
If they won't spend the one-time cost of setting up a header to make
their own preference happen, then they can't seriously expect *everyone
else* to spend an *every-reply* cost of doing so.

> > (Of course, I have no problem with doing both--setting the header and
> > asking for it in English for those whose mailers don't support it.)
> 
> So you expect people to set it, even if their mailers don't support it,
> but you accept that you might need to ask for your prefered handling of
> replies explicitly because their mailers don't support it? Talk about
> inconsistencies ;-)

No, there's no inconsistency.  I know many mailers don't support it, and
I don't see a problem with noting one's preferences in the body of the
mail for the sake of informing people who use those mailers.  Doing so
doesn't make the MFT header any less effective for me.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Kalle Kivimaa]

Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> their mail client and/or switch to mutt (which is the only mail client I
> know which supports MFT).

For the record, Gnus supports MFT too.

-- 
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*   PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer   *


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[Sven Mueller]

Bernhard R. Link wrote on 07/03/2006 18:39:
> * Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060307 14:46]:
> 
>>I don't say that the idea behind MFT is a bad idea (actually, many
>>aspects of it _do_ make sense), but until it is accepted as a standard,
>>it is (IMHO) stupid to ask people to tweak their MUAs to set and handle it.
> 
> It does not matter if it is a accepted official standard. It is a
> accepted standard for many mailing lists.

Name some, if you please. Refer to where it is documented to be an
accepted standard for the list(s) you name.

> If you want special behaviour
> of people it is only polite and beneficial for yourself if you set
> something making it a lot easier for them to respond in a way you want
> them.

Well, in general, I agree. However, I only ever see users of Mutt
request usage of MFT. And that is just one single mail client. And I
don't know of any other mail client which directly supports that header.

> Intentionally refusing to CC people not setting that header but
> requesting it manually it also impolite. But it easily happens
> unintentionally, so better set that little header.

Set it how? As noted before, most mail clients (including kmail and the
highly popular Thunderbird, which I also happen to use on all my
computers) don't support it. You are effectively asking people to patch
their mail client and/or switch to mutt (which is the only mail client I
know which supports MFT).

cu,
sven


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[Bernhard R. Link]

* Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060307 14:46]:
> I don't say that the idea behind MFT is a bad idea (actually, many
> aspects of it _do_ make sense), but until it is accepted as a standard,
> it is (IMHO) stupid to ask people to tweak their MUAs to set and handle it.

It does not matter if it is a accepted official standard. It is a
accepted standard for many mailing lists. If you want special behaviour
of people it is only polite and beneficial for yourself if you set
something making it a lot easier for them to respond in a way you want
them.
Intentionally refusing to CC people not setting that header but
requesting it manually it also impolite. But it easily happens
unintentionally, so better set that little header.

Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[Sven Mueller]

Glenn Maynard wrote on 07/03/2006 01:05:
> It is your job to set MFT if you want my mailer to treat you differently
> than everyone else, such as if you want to receive CCs on list posts.

Why? MFT isn't an accepted standard. It also isn't implemented in too
many MUAs (mozilla/thunderbird just being one example) because it wasn't
accepted as a standard. So why on earth should I manually set that
header (and in the thunderbird case, I can't even do so without major
patching and tweaking)?

I don't say that the idea behind MFT is a bad idea (actually, many
aspects of it _do_ make sense), but until it is accepted as a standard,
it is (IMHO) stupid to ask people to tweak their MUAs to set and handle it.

> If you don't, and instead just say "CC me on replies" in the message,
> you're pushing the work to handle your exceptional case onto everyone else
> on the list, which is unacceptable.  That's why, as I said, I only comply
> with such requests once, to point people to MFT (at least, unless I really
> want to talk to that person).

Why do you expect people to support a non-standard header? Actually you
are even trying to force them so use it (even if you possibly don't do
so intentionally). That's - again - stupid IMHO.

> (Of course, I have no problem with doing both--setting the header and
> asking for it in English for those whose mailers don't support it.)

So you expect people to set it, even if their mailers don't support it,
but you accept that you might need to ask for your prefered handling of
replies explicitly because their mailers don't support it? Talk about
inconsistencies ;-)

cu,
sven


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 09:35:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I read them, and they seem to say "it's not an annointed standard" (not
> > relevant) and "it's a header, put it in the body instead" (which is
> > naming a poor alternative, not naming a problem with MFT).
> 
> Sorry, I still think you seem not to have
> followed the references. There are reasons why
> draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt wasn't accepted. I
> will not present them again here, because we are already a bit
> tangential. The bottom line is that MFT is not good enough.

I read the messages at the links you provided.  They provided no insight
into why you don't like MFT; your (rather insulting) assertion that I
must not have read it doesn't change that.  The closest I can guess is
that there's some strange notion in both of those posts that MFT is
supposed to be handled by the user, manually, which is not the case; the
repeated "it's hidden by default!" complaints are irrelevant.

> Cross-posting should be discouraged and harder than the default,
> don't you think?

No, cross-posting should not be made artificially difficult and harder
to do correctly.  Don't make *me* spend extra time messing with headers
every time I want to reply to someone else's cross-posted thread.

> You called my description of the encourages-dumb-automation
> argument silly, yet here you seem to call on it. Users often
> won't check MFT, as shown by lists that munge Reply-To getting
> accidental public replies, so there's scope for much mischief.

I expect my mailer to fill in reasonable headers automatically.  That's
not dumb automation; that's basic functionality--it's my mailer's *job*
to do that for me.  I never check MFT myself; that's up to my mailer.  I
do glance over the resulting To/CC: headers, to make sure nothing strange
has happened; it *is* my job to verify the results--but it's certainly
not my job to copy a dozen recipient addresses around on a complex cross-
post, when things are behaving properly.

> Terseness is a function of time available to write the reply. The
> (IMO obvious) implication was that it is not my job to set MFT
> just because your mailer implements it.
> 
> In other words: you are wrong that it's my job to hint to your mailer,
> if that means guessing how it implements which non-standard headers.

It is your job to set MFT if you want my mailer to treat you differently
than everyone else, such as if you want to receive CCs on list posts.
If you don't, and instead just say "CC me on replies" in the message,
you're pushing the work to handle your exceptional case onto everyone else
on the list, which is unacceptable.  That's why, as I said, I only comply
with such requests once, to point people to MFT (at least, unless I really
want to talk to that person).

(Of course, I have no problem with doing both--setting the header and
asking for it in English for those whose mailers don't support it.)

> > Nobody is "expected" to use software that supports the header.  If you
> > don't, you're still expected to follow list policy and you'll have to
> > continue doing it in other ways, but you're no worse off for the presence
> > of the header.
> 
> Clearly, we are. There are repeated threads where arrogant users
> of non-standard MUAs flame others for not following MFT. Does
> this get better or worse if there are more MFTs around?

There are repeated threads on Debian lists for people not following list
policy.  That's sometimes phrased in terms of MFT, but I've never seen a
"you didn't CC me even though my MFT said to" flamewar, only the inverse;
and I've never seen one at all on a non-Debian list.

> Further, MFT exacerbates that accidental-cc problem.

Setting a CC that shouldn't be there is saying "copy this person on
followups" when they don't want copies.  That's an error.

Not retaining CC lists on followup is usually an error, at least on Debian
lists; you're probably dropping people from the discussion.

These two errors, when they happen simultaneously, cancel each other out.

Your argument is that since MFT reduces the probability of the second
error, it reduces the chance of the two errors cancelling out, so it
"exacerbates" the first; and therefore MFT is bad.  I hope you can see
my problem with that rationale ...

> What possible automated values would you set in MFT which
> would include only mailing lists? The only ways I can see that
> lists.debian.org could add your preferred MFT when none was sent
> are to either build an index of all mailing list addresses or
> to probe -request addresses. If it was only to include the list
> forwarding the request, it would just be a List-Post duplicate.

My original suggestion was that it include all addresses in the To: and Cc:
headers, except for those which are subscribed to the list.

That's imperfect, as I acknowledged from the beginning, but it does seem
like an improvement.  (Of course, I suggested it with the hope that others
might be able to refine it.)

-- 
Glenn 

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[MJ Ray]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:06:46AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Neither? So you still didn't bother with the reference?
> > 
> > The problems are cited: maybe you don't agree they are problems.
> 
> I read them, and they seem to say "it's not an annointed standard" (not
> relevant) and "it's a header, put it in the body instead" (which is
> naming a poor alternative, not naming a problem with MFT).

Sorry, I still think you seem not to have
followed the references. There are reasons why
draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt wasn't accepted. I
will not present them again here, because we are already a bit
tangential. The bottom line is that MFT is not good enough.

> > The reasonable default behaviour is to send list replies to the
> > List-Post address, off-list replies to Reply-To||From and group
> > replies to all original recipients.
> 
> This behavior fails to handle cross-posting, forcing people to use
> group-reply and then manually tweak the recipients.  For those of us who

Cross-posting should be discouraged and harder than the default,
don't you think?

> pay attention, it forces us to spend undue time adjusting recipients
> when such details should be handled by the mailer.  It encourages people
> to use group-reply all the time, copying everyone.  MFT fixes this cleanly:
> list-reply fills in correct recipients; in the typical case, I only need
> to glance over the result to verify it.

You called my description of the encourages-dumb-automation
argument silly, yet here you seem to call on it. Users often
won't check MFT, as shown by lists that munge Reply-To getting
accidental public replies, so there's scope for much mischief.

Yes, users ought to behave, but MUAs ought to support the List-*
RFCs and mutt didn't, last I checked. The world doesn't ought.

> > > and it's your job
> > > to hint my mailer if you want it to treat you atypically, such as if you
> > > want CC's on followups to Debian lists.
> > 
> > It should not be my job to work around bugs in your mailer.
> 
> Please don't offer replies which are so terse as to not convey a clear
> meaning.  You seem to be implying that to *not* send you a copy on a list
> followup is a bug in my mailer.  However, I'm pretty sure that's not
> your belief, so I have no idea what you were actually trying to say.

Terseness is a function of time available to write the reply. The
(IMO obvious) implication was that it is not my job to set MFT
just because your mailer implements it.

In other words: you are wrong that it's my job to hint to your mailer,
if that means guessing how it implements which non-standard headers.

> > No, expecting people to use broken software that implements
> > non-standard mail headers is unreasonable. In any case, explicit
> > requests are another common way, so your "only" was false.
> 
> Nobody is "expected" to use software that supports the header.  If you
> don't, you're still expected to follow list policy and you'll have to
> continue doing it in other ways, but you're no worse off for the presence
> of the header.

Clearly, we are. There are repeated threads where arrogant users
of non-standard MUAs flame others for not following MFT. Does
this get better or worse if there are more MFTs around?

> > Thank you for agreeing that MFT does nothing to help solve one of
> > the most common problems on debian lists. I guess we'll just differ
> > on the desirability of supporting a non-standard header in the
> > listserver or hiding cc requests in headers.
> 
> The fact that MFT does not solve an unrelated problem (user error in
> specifying who should receive copies of replies) is irrelevant.  I
> agree, as well, that MFT does not solve world hunger.

Further, MFT exacerbates that accidental-cc problem.

> As far as I can see, you've not named any problems that would be caused
> by list software automatically creating MFT headers indicating the list's
> policy.  I could hypothesize some, but they're along similar lines as list
> software that sets "Reply-To" automatically: it may override explicit uses
> of it.  I'm not sure if that'd be a problem.  But, I can think of no problems
> along the lines you're talking about.

What possible automated values would you set in MFT which
would include only mailing lists? The only ways I can see that
lists.debian.org could add your preferred MFT when none was sent
are to either build an index of all mailing list addresses or
to probe -request addresses. If it was only to include the list
forwarding the request, it would just be a List-Post duplicate.

I've cited several problems with it, as well as correcting some
errors in the MFT advocacy. I'm sorry you seem not to have
learnt from the references, but that's not my fault.

Finally, I'm in disbelief at advocacy of munging yet another
header. lists.d.o is very well-behaved and doesn't even mangle
Subject today, unlike many.  Long may that continue!

Best wishes,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see htt

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:06:46AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Neither? So you still didn't bother with the reference?
> 
> The problems are cited: maybe you don't agree they are problems.

I read them, and they seem to say "it's not an annointed standard" (not
relevant) and "it's a header, put it in the body instead" (which is
naming a poor alternative, not naming a problem with MFT).

> A major argument for MFT seems to be that people should
> brainlessly follow it rather than consider where they send
> their replies. No mail headers should be trusted that much
> and no-one should get sniffy when headers are deliberately
> overridden.

That's silly.  MFT should be followed as much as other headers, no more.
Obviously, if you set a Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I'm not going to honor
it, either.

> The reasonable default behaviour is to send list replies to the
> List-Post address, off-list replies to Reply-To||From and group
> replies to all original recipients.

This behavior fails to handle cross-posting, forcing people to use
group-reply and then manually tweak the recipients.  For those of us who
pay attention, it forces us to spend undue time adjusting recipients
when such details should be handled by the mailer.  It encourages people
to use group-reply all the time, copying everyone.  MFT fixes this cleanly:
list-reply fills in correct recipients; in the typical case, I only need
to glance over the result to verify it.

(I think I already gave that as an example, but maybe I elided it.)

> > and it's your job
> > to hint my mailer if you want it to treat you atypically, such as if you
> > want CC's on followups to Debian lists.
> 
> It should not be my job to work around bugs in your mailer.

Please don't offer replies which are so terse as to not convey a clear
meaning.  You seem to be implying that to *not* send you a copy on a list
followup is a bug in my mailer.  However, I'm pretty sure that's not
your belief, so I have no idea what you were actually trying to say.

> No, expecting people to use broken software that implements
> non-standard mail headers is unreasonable. In any case, explicit
> requests are another common way, so your "only" was false.

Nobody is "expected" to use software that supports the header.  If you
don't, you're still expected to follow list policy and you'll have to
continue doing it in other ways, but you're no worse off for the presence
of the header.

> Thank you for agreeing that MFT does nothing to help solve one of
> the most common problems on debian lists. I guess we'll just differ
> on the desirability of supporting a non-standard header in the
> listserver or hiding cc requests in headers.

The fact that MFT does not solve an unrelated problem (user error in
specifying who should receive copies of replies) is irrelevant.  I
agree, as well, that MFT does not solve world hunger.


As far as I can see, you've not named any problems that would be caused
by list software automatically creating MFT headers indicating the list's
policy.  I could hypothesize some, but they're along similar lines as list
software that sets "Reply-To" automatically: it may override explicit uses
of it.  I'm not sure if that'd be a problem.  But, I can think of no problems
along the lines you're talking about.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[MJ Ray]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:31:31AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Please see my other message and look up the DRUMS reference:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/03/msg3.html
> > For another person complaining about the brokenness of MFT, see
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/03/msg7.html
> 
> Neither of these actually name any problems with MFT, as far as I can
> see; you assert that it's "broken by design" but don't explain why.

Neither? So you still didn't bother with the reference?

The problems are cited: maybe you don't agree they are problems.

> It's perfectly normal to "control other people's mail clients"; that's
> what headers *do*.  From: and Reply-To headers tells clients where to
> send replies; MFT, in identical fashion, tells clients where to send
> list followups.

A major argument for MFT seems to be that people should
brainlessly follow it rather than consider where they send
their replies. No mail headers should be trusted that much
and no-one should get sniffy when headers are deliberately
overridden.

> Of course, these are always just hints; I can always override my mailer
> to ignore a Reply-To or MFT header if I have reason to, but it's my
> mailer's job to provide reasonable default behavior (such that I don't
> have to manually edit recipients in the ordinary case),

The reasonable default behaviour is to send list replies to the
List-Post address, off-list replies to Reply-To||From and group
replies to all original recipients.

> and it's your job
> to hint my mailer if you want it to treat you atypically, such as if you
> want CC's on followups to Debian lists.

It should not be my job to work around bugs in your mailer.

> > > It's currently the only common way for a sender to express his preference:
> > 
> > Nonsense. Ask explicitly in the body. Don't hide it in the header.
> 
> No, expecting people to manually set their replies to follow each
> individual's preference is unreasonable. [...]

No, expecting people to use broken software that implements
non-standard mail headers is unreasonable. In any case, explicit
requests are another common way, so your "only" was false.

> [...]  If someone goofs and puts a name in the CC
> list that shouldn't be there, he's going to get copies that he doesn't
> want.  MFT doesn't change that.

Thank you for agreeing that MFT does nothing to help solve one of
the most common problems on debian lists. I guess we'll just differ
on the desirability of supporting a non-standard header in the
listserver or hiding cc requests in headers.

Best wishes,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:31:31AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Please see my other message and look up the DRUMS reference:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/03/msg3.html
> For another person complaining about the brokenness of MFT, see
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/03/msg7.html

Neither of these actually name any problems with MFT, as far as I can
see; you assert that it's "broken by design" but don't explain why.
It's perfectly normal to "control other people's mail clients"; that's
what headers *do*.  From: and Reply-To headers tells clients where to
send replies; MFT, in identical fashion, tells clients where to send
list followups.

Of course, these are always just hints; I can always override my mailer
to ignore a Reply-To or MFT header if I have reason to, but it's my
mailer's job to provide reasonable default behavior (such that I don't
have to manually edit recipients in the ordinary case), and it's your job
to hint my mailer if you want it to treat you atypically, such as if you
want CC's on followups to Debian lists.

> Haven't you ever considered a "MFT: dev-null" or worse?

Sorry, I don't understand what you're suggesting.

> > It's currently the only common way for a sender to express his preference:
> 
> Nonsense. Ask explicitly in the body. Don't hide it in the header.

No, expecting people to manually set their replies to follow each
individual's preference is unreasonable.  If someone asks for a CC on
a list mail, I do so once (to ask them to use MFT), and ignore it from
then on.  It's their responsibility to hint my mailer how to reply, by
setting the appropriate header--not mine to implement their preferences
by hand.

> > When I reply to a mail to a list with a CC to a third party, I maintain
> > that CC (unless I specifically know that the person is on the list).
> > Those CC's are usually to people not on the list, and *should* be
> > preserved.  This wouldn't change if MFT was added automatically.
> 
> Then all it would take is one person to goof and put someone
> in the CC who shouldn't be there and you would repeat that goof,
> according to your description above.

If you CC a person in a list followup, you're saying (in practice,
going from my experience on lists) "this person should receive CCs
on future followups".  If someone goofs and puts a name in the CC
list that shouldn't be there, he's going to get copies that he doesn't
want.  MFT doesn't change that.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[MJ Ray]

Floris Bruynooghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] Only on direct replies this
> request will be preserved, after that the request could be easily
> stipped by accident. [...]

Well, the same is more true for MFT, especially when it hits a
user agent that doesn't support that non-standard, as it wouldn't
be in the reply to start with and not all clients permit header
editing. It's easier for humans to preserve the cc request.

Best wishes,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[Floris Bruynooghe]

On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:31:31AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:12:58AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > I'm sure it's possible, but I think encouraging that broken
> > > non-standard header is a bad idea. It is not that hard for
> > > people to control their mail clients correctly IMO. 
> > 
> > You say "broken header" without explaining why, as if this is common
> > knowledge, but I've never heard of any problems with it; you're the
> > only person I've ever heard call it "broken".
>
> [...]
>
> Haven't you ever considered a "MFT: dev-null" or worse?
> 
> > It's currently the only common way for a sender to express his preference:
> 
> Nonsense. Ask explicitly in the body. Don't hide it in the header.

Problem with that is that the person needing the CC will not get all
messages in the rest of the thread.  Only on direct replies this
request will be preserved, after that the request could be easily
stipped by accident.  Machines are much better at remembering these
things and writing them down every time.  This leads to a header imho,
whether that be MFT or some other sort of "public-reply-to" I'm not
fussed, but MFT seems like the closest we get currently.

Regards
Floris

-- 
Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom
www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[MJ Ray]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:12:58AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I'm sure it's possible, but I think encouraging that broken
> > non-standard header is a bad idea. It is not that hard for
> > people to control their mail clients correctly IMO. 
> 
> You say "broken header" without explaining why, as if this is common
> knowledge, but I've never heard of any problems with it; you're the
> only person I've ever heard call it "broken".

Please see my other message and look up the DRUMS reference:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/03/msg3.html
For another person complaining about the brokenness of MFT, see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/03/msg7.html
or you could just search around for critiques of MFT.

Haven't you ever considered a "MFT: dev-null" or worse?

> It's currently the only common way for a sender to express his preference:

Nonsense. Ask explicitly in the body. Don't hide it in the header.

[...]
> > Also, the above behaviour would encourage many people to jump
> > through hoops to follow the list code of conduct as soon as
> > only one person fails and puts someone in the CC unwanted.
> 
> When I reply to a mail to a list with a CC to a third party, I maintain
> that CC (unless I specifically know that the person is on the list).
> Those CC's are usually to people not on the list, and *should* be
> preserved.  This wouldn't change if MFT was added automatically.

Then all it would take is one person to goof and put someone
in the CC who shouldn't be there and you would repeat that goof,
according to your description above.

> [...] It just seems like things could be improved a bit.  When you have
> an unusual policy, and lots of people break it because it's unusual, then
> the problem may not lie *entirely* in the user ...

I agree. The shocking state of List-Post support in mail clients
needs fixing. I contributed List-Post patches to one mail client:
if each DD irritated by bad list handling did that, we'd soon fix
the world.

Best wishes,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:12:58AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> > Just as a thought, I wonder if it's possible for the list software to
> > automatically add an MFT header, if it's missing, indicating that only
> > people not subscribed to the list, or explicitly in the CC list, should
> > be CC'd. [...]
> 
> I'm sure it's possible, but I think encouraging that broken
> non-standard header is a bad idea. It is not that hard for
> people to control their mail clients correctly IMO. 

You say "broken header" without explaining why, as if this is common
knowledge, but I've never heard of any problems with it; you're the
only person I've ever heard call it "broken".

It's currently the only common way for a sender to express his preference:
"copy me on followups" or "don't copy me on followups".  Without it,
it's impossible for people to "control their mail clients correctly"
so people who want copies get them and people who don't want copies
don't get them, unless they manually track individuals (unreasonable).

> Also, the above behaviour would encourage many people to jump
> through hoops to follow the list code of conduct as soon as
> only one person fails and puts someone in the CC unwanted.

When I reply to a mail to a list with a CC to a third party, I maintain
that CC (unless I specifically know that the person is on the list).
Those CC's are usually to people not on the list, and *should* be
preserved.  This wouldn't change if MFT was added automatically.

It's even worse with complex cross-posting, where several lists and several
individuals are being copied.  Neither list-reply nor group-reply does the
right thing: list-reply will only copy known lists and the MFT (typically
losing people), and group-reply will mail everyone (even those who don't
want a copy, such as the sender of the mail being replied to).  This
encourages people to use group-reply (which is closer to correct).

Anyway, I'm all for caution when trying to do anything "smart" to headers,
since these things can get complicated and break things in unexpected
ways.  It just seems like things could be improved a bit.  When you have
an unusual policy, and lots of people break it because it's unusual, then
the problem may not lie *entirely* in the user ...

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[MJ Ray]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> Just as a thought, I wonder if it's possible for the list software to
> automatically add an MFT header, if it's missing, indicating that only
> people not subscribed to the list, or explicitly in the CC list, should
> be CC'd. [...]

I'm sure it's possible, but I think encouraging that broken
non-standard header is a bad idea. It is not that hard for
people to control their mail clients correctly IMO. Also,
the above behaviour would encourage many people to jump
through hoops to follow the list code of conduct as soon as
only one person fails and puts someone in the CC unwanted.

Hope that explains it,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 05:22:49AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> I'm sorry that you cannot remember, but perhaps you could use procmail
> or something similar to make sure that this header is always set
> according to each list policy.  Also, you could set up mutt to do
> different things for different lists, if that's possible (I haven't used
> mutt in a long time, so I don't remember).  Ultimately, it is your
> responsibility as the sender.

I agree in general, but it would also be good for Debian's list software
to express its policy (via the Mail-Followup-To header, of course, not 
the Reply-To header).  While I think it's reasonable to expect subscribed
people to remember not to CC replies (it's a good default, except on lists
where people are typically *not* subscribed, like -user help lists), not
everyone posting to Debian lists is subscribed: conversations are often
cross-posted.  Expecting people to investigate the policies of every CC'd
list is unreasonable.

Just as a thought, I wonder if it's possible for the list software to
automatically add an MFT header, if it's missing, indicating that only
people not subscribed to the list, or explicitly in the CC list, should
be CC'd.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[John H. Robinson, IV]

Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> 
> Mutt has several different reply options, some of them may be more
> appropriate than others.  Anyway, it does not matter: the Debian Mailing
> List Code of Conduct *explicitly* 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.
> 
> As the sender, it is your job to comply with that, not mine as the
> recipient[0].

As the sender, it is your job to communicate this effectively. Relying
upon headers that you are not in your control over is a poor way to
attempt to communicate this. Majordomo understood this, and had all
mailing list commands be set in the *body*, the only part that was under
control of the sender.

If you use a header that is commonly not seen by a mailer, such as
X-Please: cc me
that will similarly probably end in dissapointment.

In the signature would probably be poor, as the lowlighting would hide
it, and who really reads the signatures, anyway? The best place is
probably right before the signature. A simple one line things: Please cc
me, I am not subscribed to the list.

I speak from my own personal experience. I keep my mailer set to show me
no headers whatsoever. I get the information I need most of the time
from the index. This includes From:, Subject:, and Date:. That is it.
When I did have my mailer show me headers, that was all I had it show
anyway. I never look at X- headers, nor *Spam* headers. They are
completely uninteresting.

I will happily comply with wishes, but they have to be communicated
in a way I can understand. I don't think I am alone in this, either.

-- 
John H. Robinson, IV  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http  
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ( )(:[
as apparently my cats have learned how to type.  spiders.html  


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[Brian M. Carlson]

On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 02:46 +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:04:17AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > However, the code of conduct seems to
> > point out that one should not Cc someone unless they specifically ask
> > for it (a guideline that you neglected to follow, after I pointed this
> > out to Mr. Bushnell).
> 
> Frankly, I never check the recipient list when I press "g" in mutt. I
> assume that if you do not want to be CC'ed, then you can set up
> Reply-To: to express that.

Mutt has several different reply options, some of them may be more
appropriate than others.  Anyway, it does not matter: the Debian Mailing
List Code of Conduct *explicitly* 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.

As the sender, it is your job to comply with that, not mine as the
recipient[0].

> Assuming that a new poster will find and decipher the cryptic contents
> of a non-standard e-mail header (that is even likely to be overwritten
> if there are several spam filters in the delivery chain) is completely
> unrealistic. The only sensible default is to assume that if there is a
> specific requirement for the reply, then the Reply-To: header will be
> set up accordingly (either automatically, or by the user who has the
> requirement).

No, I was suggesting that this be used by long time posters to determine
if a poster that they have not seen before might desire to be Cc'd, even
though they have not explicitly said so.  My point is that those who
have subscribed to the list are expected to have read and understood the
code of conduct, and should be Cc'd *only* if they ask for it.

Also, setting a Reply-To is often considered harmful for mailing lists,
as people are wont to accidentally send private mail to the list.

> > If you are unsure, you could simply not Cc someone unless they ask.
> 
> The problem is, every project has different requirements for its mailing
> lists. Right now I'm subscibed to about 20 lists only, but I'm sure
> as hell can not remember the policy for each of them. So if you'd like
> people to follow a specific policy, then tell that to their MUA by
> setting Reply-To:. After all, we have computers to do some work instead
> of us, not the other way around...

I'm sorry that you cannot remember, but perhaps you could use procmail
or something similar to make sure that this header is always set
according to each list policy.  Also, you could set up mutt to do
different things for different lists, if that's possible (I haven't used
mutt in a long time, so I don't remember).  Ultimately, it is your
responsibility as the sender.

I appreciate your cooperation with list policy.

[0] See Branden's form letter at:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/10/msg01178.html


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