Re: Reply-to munging
| I note for the record, however, that I received two copies of this email, | which means that Joe must have hit Group Reply, so that means that *even | with* Reply-to munging on, the principle of minimal bandwidth is violated :-) Not that I think it matters _that_ much, but I seriously like the reply to all thing when replying to a list, and always does it myself! ;) The reasons are this: I send a mail to a list, and then when someone replies to it: *) I will know that it is a reply to _my_ post, not just a new message. Pine (and I believe all the rest) knows my email address, and therefore highlights the messages which are replies to my post. *) Sorting (Procmail). I can sort based on that this is a post to the tomcat list, but my address is in the headers, therefore I'll also send a SMS to my cell telling me of the newly arrived reply to my post. Just as an example. I believe it says more to include the original posters address than not doing it. You can use formail to delete duplicates, I believe. If there is some other way of doing those two things I pointed out, please let me know.. | | (I note also that since my From address is not my preferred address, anyone | replying to me personally from a list post will be using my internal | address, which may change at any moment Then why not change your From: ? I use my personal address when posting to forums and friends and such, and my work address when mailing to collegues and business stuff. This I do using Pine's Roles, so that the From: is based on which folder I'm standing in when writing or replying. -- Mvh, Endre - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reply-to munging
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Jon Stevens wrote: | on 7/11/01 11:12 AM, Alex Chaffee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | I note for the record, however, that I received two copies of this email, | which means that Joe must have hit Group Reply, so that means that *even | with* Reply-to munging on, the principle of minimal bandwidth is violated :-) | | I just did a group to reply to this email and my email client only made it | go back to the list. Someone must have added you manually. Depends on your mailer. It _should_ only respect the Reply-To: header (by RFC, I believe), but e.g. Pine allows you to do a Reply to all recipients as well. It is a compile-time option, I think. The one I'm using asks whether I want to use the Reply-To: address intstead of From:, and then, if the mail was sent to several addresses, asks whether I want to Reply to all recipients. -- Mvh, Endre - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Reply-to munging
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I expect the list to behave the way it does .. -Original Message- From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 11:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reply-to munging On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 02:36, Alex Chaffee wrote: Can we turn off the munging of headers that is currently adding Reply-to on all the jakarta lists? Please read http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html before asking why it's a problem. (BTW, I just got bit: I replied to a message with R and only after I hit send did I notice that it was going to the whole list instead of to the individual I intended.) (Also, if someone wants to reach me privately, they should use the address in my Reply-to field -- I don't appreciate the list stripping it and leaving the unpreferred From address.) -1 I get bit far more often when it is not the case. Cheers, Pete *-* | Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof. | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-* - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use http://www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBO0wbVElGf1KbtpBnEQLHUwCeJRK0kOJ5OHgn5OPGrf/OcXZaelUAni2h 6sNFDn0CmFtfYURpENpaCaDb =OAdq -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reply-to munging
Joseph Dane wrote: Alex == Alex Chaffee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alex Can we turn off the munging of headers that is currently adding Alex Reply-to on all the jakarta lists? Alex Please read http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Alex before asking why it's a problem. http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml my vote, FWIW, is to leave things as they are. Thank you, Joe! I hadn't seen that document before, and it's good to have a list of all the counter-arguments (rather than a barrage of -1s). I note for the record, however, that I received two copies of this email, which means that Joe must have hit Group Reply, so that means that *even with* Reply-to munging on, the principle of minimal bandwidth is violated :-) (I note also that since my From address is not my preferred address, anyone replying to me personally from a list post will be using my internal address, which may change at any moment -- Mr. Hill's reply-to-useful doc doesn't address this. And I'm not demanding a response here, either -- as far as I'm concerned, this question is asked and answered, and I'm happy to get back to work.) - A -- Alex Chaffee mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] jGuru - Java News and FAQs http://www.jguru.com/alex/ Creator of Gamelan http://www.gamelan.com/ Founder of Purple Technology http://www.purpletech.com/ Curator of Stinky Art Collective http://www.stinky.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reply-to munging
on 7/10/01 9:36 AM, Alex Chaffee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can we turn off the munging of headers that is currently adding Reply-to on all the jakarta lists? Please read http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html before asking why it's a problem. -1 That document is one persons opinion and shouldn't be taken as everyone's opinion. I would *hate* it to always get two copies of everyone's email because people are lazy and don't remove the people when they reply-to-all. Yes, I use procmail to filter on messageid, but making everyone do that is uncool and it also doesn't work when the messageid from the list is modified. Yes, I agree that mail clients should be improved to deal with this better, but the fact of the matter is that that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Sigh, one of these days, I need to go write a document that discounts everything that person says. Theory is a good thing, but practicality is reality. -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reply-to munging
Alex == Alex Chaffee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alex Can we turn off the munging of headers that is currently adding Alex Reply-to on all the jakarta lists? Alex Please read http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Alex before asking why it's a problem. http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml my vote, FWIW, is to leave things as they are. -- joe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reply-to munging
* Alex Chaffee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | Can we turn off the munging of headers that is currently adding | Reply-to on all the jakarta lists? I agree with this, but this case has been up before with some people having very strong feelings about the current config. I would prefer to keep the reply-to header intact and rather teach people how to use their mail programs. Most people around ought to be able to that or is the people here in Apache land not as bright as those in other userlands on the net ? IMNSHO, Gunnar -- Gunnar Rønning - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Consultant, Polygnosis AS, http://www.polygnosis.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reply-to munging
No need. http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml -warner - Original Message - From: Jon Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 1:22 PM Subject: Re: Reply-to munging on 7/10/01 9:36 AM, Alex Chaffee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can we turn off the munging of headers that is currently adding Reply-to on all the jakarta lists? Please read http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html before asking why it's a problem. -1 That document is one persons opinion and shouldn't be taken as everyone's opinion. I would *hate* it to always get two copies of everyone's email because people are lazy and don't remove the people when they reply-to-all. Yes, I use procmail to filter on messageid, but making everyone do that is uncool and it also doesn't work when the messageid from the list is modified. Yes, I agree that mail clients should be improved to deal with this better, but the fact of the matter is that that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Sigh, one of these days, I need to go write a document that discounts everything that person says. Theory is a good thing, but practicality is reality. -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reply-to munging
At 21:11 10.07.2001 +0200, Gunnar Rønning wrote: * Alex Chaffee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | Can we turn off the munging of headers that is currently adding | Reply-to on all the jakarta lists? I agree with this, but this case has been up before with some people having very strong feelings about the current config. I would prefer to keep the reply-to header intact and rather teach people how to use their mail programs. Most people around ought to be able to that or is the people here in Apache land not as bright as those in other userlands on the net ? I am for one thankful to Pier and others for the doing the ungrateful work of managing our mailing lists. As for the brightness of people in the Apache land, one can be sure that making allusions on our limited intelligence will bring out the best in us. Well, maybe not... Ceki ps: I am also in favor of preserving the Reply-to field but people who have given the issue some thought have the opposite opinion. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reply-to munging
on 7/10/01 2:09 PM, Joseph Dane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml my vote, FWIW, is to leave things as they are. -- joe HELL YES! That essay conveys *exactly* what I was thinking. I love it. Thanks for the link. I'm saving that one forever. -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reply-to munging
HELL YES! That essay conveys *exactly* what I was thinking. I love it. Thanks for the link. I'm saving that one forever. Me too. It did a great job of capturing the vacuous nature of each argument in the original essay. I took the liberty of adding a neutral statement with links to both essays in the Summary: Watch where you are sending email. guideline on: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail.html in the hope it might prevent this from coming up again. daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
