RE: [Haskell-cafe] Re: list choices
Malcolm Wallace wrote: As for Reply-to: munging - I agree that _changing_ an existing header would be bad, but would be very happy if mailing lists were to _introduce_ one on messages where none already existed. That would IMO be the worst of both worlds, as people might use Reply-To for reasons entirely unconnected with the mailing list. So you'd end up with a confusing situation where the default target of replies varied depending on some completely irrelevant factor. Ganesh == Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html == ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: list choices
Malcolm Wallace malcolm.wall...@cs.york.ac.uk writes: The duplicate messages will have the same Message-ID... if they post a message they *want* the reply to go to their main inbox as well as the mailing list folder. Maybe I am just stupid, or maybe my email client is inadequate, If your email doesn't have the option to hide or sort out duplicate messages, another option might be to use procmail - googling for procmail filter duplicates might give you some recipes. As for Reply-to: munging - I agree that _changing_ an existing header would be bad, but would be very happy if mailing lists were to _introduce_ one on messages where none already existed. I've been following many lists who choose to add a Reply-To header, and they invariably get cluttered by mail intended to be private accidentally being posted to the list. Usually it isn't too embarassing, but sometimes it is. I'd err on the side of caution. Of course, the right solution would be for Mailman (or other list processing software) to let subscribers choose individually how to set headers in the email they receive. -k (carefully deleting the @cs.york address from the To field) -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: list choices
Both of the points raised by Malcolm are a matter of personal preference, in my opinion. In fact, my own preference is the opposite of Malcolm's in both cases. Both of Malcolm's suggestions would rob me of filtering capability. Malcolm Wallace wrote: I would suggest that posting announcements *only* to haskell@, but with followups set to haskell-cafe@, is the ideal way to keep everyone informed... I am usually not interested in the posts to haskell - calls for papers and the like. So I receive it as a digest it and rarely look at it. Posts that interest me, such as announcements of new packages on hackage, tend to be cross-posted to haskell-cafe. That is ideal for me. ...it would reduce _so_ much irritation if all the haskell-related mailing lists could set the Reply-To header to the list, instead of defaulting to the original poster. I filter haskell-cafe traffic into a place where I can browse it if I have time. But when I am participating in a thread, I want its messages to pop up in my inbox. Forcing active threads to the inbox would take work (given my setup), and the result would be far less accurate. I appreciate people's efforts to include me in a conversation by mentioning me as a recipient. Regards, Yitz ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Re: list choices
The duplicate messages will have the same Message-ID... if they post a message they *want* the reply to go to their main inbox as well as the mailing list folder. Maybe I am just stupid, or maybe my email client is inadequate, but I cannot work out how to filter the same email such that different copies go into different boxes. For me, all 3 or 4 copies of a cross- post get filtered into the same box. I have not yet managed to find a reliably distinguishing set of headers to separate them. As for Reply-to: munging - I agree that _changing_ an existing header would be bad, but would be very happy if mailing lists were to _introduce_ one on messages where none already existed. (I _am_ aware of the general polemic against using a default Reply-To: header in mailing lists, e.g. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html but disagree fundamentally with many of the implicit assumptions and explicit arguments therein.) Regards, Malcolm ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: list choices
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Malcolm Wallace malcolm.wall...@cs.york.ac.uk wrote: The duplicate messages will have the same Message-ID... if they post a message they *want* the reply to go to their main inbox as well as the mailing list folder. Maybe I am just stupid, or maybe my email client is inadequate, but I cannot work out how to filter the same email such that different copies go into different boxes. For me, all 3 or 4 copies of a cross-post get filtered into the same box. I have not yet managed to find a reliably distinguishing set of headers to separate them. I've always had success using List-Id for this purpose. /M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
