Re: mea máxima culpa
Carl Peterson carlopeter...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 1:20 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Tim Roberts t...@probo.com writes: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: How does it make it harder? As I said, replying to a digest makes no sense with regard to message threading anyway. Of course it makes sense. I just did it, and your mailer is almost certainly showing you the proper threading, isn't it? No, it isn't. Wrong References: header apparently (most definitely not pointing to the Message-Id: header of the article you are replying to). It's not possible to go to the parent article, and it is not possible to recall the entire thread from the server. Both are possible with proper replies. Maybe you think that the Subject header is all that is needed for proper threading, but of course it would not allow for the topical sort a proper thread display needs to do. Funny thing...it showed up in my email system properly threaded. No idea what email system you are using, but the headers on your mail are References: mailman.34835.1378923505.10747.lilypond-u...@gnu.org 5231f387.6080...@probo.com 87wqmmgdnq@fencepost.gnu.org and when following that, one gets to my reply, Tim's posting, and then an inaccessible message since my mail system never got to see the digest. The In-Reply-To: header chain does just the same thing. So I have no idea how your email system would figure out just what mail Tim had been replying to. The information is just not there in the headers. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
Hi all, I have no idea how your email system would figure out just what mail Tim had been replying to. The information is just not there in the headers. Apple Mail uses the Subject (as text), and I imagine there are other applications that do the same. This of course leads to any number of frustrations, including re: re: test not being threaded with re: test, and mail from completely different conversations (with the same subject line) being threaded together. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote: Hi all, I have no idea how your email system would figure out just what mail Tim had been replying to. The information is just not there in the headers. Apple Mail uses the Subject (as text), and I imagine there are other applications that do the same. This of course leads to any number of frustrations, including re: re: test not being threaded with re: test, and mail from completely different conversations (with the same subject line) being threaded together. Cheers, Kieren. David, Gmail is just that smart. It primarily uses the subject line, though I think it pays attention to some other things, as I can't recall having the problem Kieren describes. I think Gmail also looks for similarities in the body of the message. It has some awareness of how the body of a message is structured, as it commonly hides signature blocks (including the lilypond-user mailing list block) Regarding the actual subject matter, my previously-voiced frustration is that the individual messages are *not* set up to reply to the list by default. As a matter of consistency, I think both the individual messages and the digest should reply to the list, or neither. My preference is for both to do so. This is perhaps the only mailing list I've been on where that is not the case. The rest of you may have different experiences, but that is mine. Cheers, Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: How does it make it harder? As I said, replying to a digest makes no sense with regard to message threading anyway. Of course it makes sense. I just did it, and your mailer is almost certainly showing you the proper threading, isn't it? -- Tim Roberts, t...@probo.com Providenza Boekelheide, Inc. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 1:20 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Tim Roberts t...@probo.com writes: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: How does it make it harder? As I said, replying to a digest makes no sense with regard to message threading anyway. Of course it makes sense. I just did it, and your mailer is almost certainly showing you the proper threading, isn't it? No, it isn't. Wrong References: header apparently (most definitely not pointing to the Message-Id: header of the article you are replying to). It's not possible to go to the parent article, and it is not possible to recall the entire thread from the server. Both are possible with proper replies. Maybe you think that the Subject header is all that is needed for proper threading, but of course it would not allow for the topical sort a proper thread display needs to do. Funny thing...it showed up in my email system properly threaded. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
Tim Roberts t...@probo.com writes: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: How does it make it harder? As I said, replying to a digest makes no sense with regard to message threading anyway. Of course it makes sense. I just did it, and your mailer is almost certainly showing you the proper threading, isn't it? No, it isn't. Wrong References: header apparently (most definitely not pointing to the Message-Id: header of the article you are replying to). It's not possible to go to the parent article, and it is not possible to recall the entire thread from the server. Both are possible with proper replies. Maybe you think that the Subject header is all that is needed for proper threading, but of course it would not allow for the topical sort a proper thread display needs to do. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes: Hi all, I have no idea how your email system would figure out just what mail Tim had been replying to. The information is just not there in the headers. Apple Mail uses the Subject (as text), and I imagine there are other applications that do the same. Oh, short of other information, my mailing system groups together articles with a common subject line in chronological order. Sure. But it has no clue who replied to whom, and it can't fetch related mails from the server without reading a whole bunch of messages with various subjects based on their chronological order alone and then trying to sort based on subject and chronology afterwards. This of course leads to any number of frustrations, including re: re: test not being threaded with re: test, and mail from completely different conversations (with the same subject line) being threaded together. Well yes, a thread is logically a _tree_. A chronological sort only renders a list, and that's just not useful for tracking a particular conversation to its start. There may be mailing systems that actually can't do better than that anyway, but most of them should preserve more from the threading. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:04 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: I'm certain Gmail will also be able to figure out the mail you are replying to without referring to any header at all as long as any Gmail user has not yet deleted it (and probably even afterwards). But for a normal mail server/client setup not relying on a universal freely associating data kraken on the server end, one needs to have information as specific as a Message Id in order to do reliable queries. My understanding is that Gmail does not cross reference messages from multiple accounts to figure out threading. I'll also issue a mea culpa of my own. When you mentioned threading, I was not thinking in the sense of a tree. I was only considering the idea of a conversation, understanding which messages belong together. To my knowledge, Gmail does not attempt to figure out who is replying to whom, but uses a chronological sequencing. Regarding the actual subject matter, my previously-voiced frustration is that the individual messages are *not* set up to reply to the list by default. Don't use Reply to sender if you don't want to reply to the sender. (1) 99% of the time, if I'm replying to a message, I'm intending to reply to the list. Defaults are usually selected to in some way minimize effort, which brings me to (2), I'm lazy. Reply all requires extra mouse-clicks. As a matter of consistency, I think both the individual messages and the digest should reply to the list, or neither. Do you mean to imply that the digest _does_ add an explicit Reply-To: header and it goes to the list? That would indeed be on the less than sane side. I have no idea what the digest does or doesn't do. I am replying to your prior statement, Maybe the reply-to header of the digest should not even point to the list? As Tim pointed out, the non-digest messages do not and your proposal would be logically consistent with that. I am simply stating a preference for the reply-to of both to do so. I don't see how this is on the less-than-sane side. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
Carl Peterson carlopeter...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote: I have no idea how your email system would figure out just what mail Tim had been replying to. The information is just not there in the headers. Apple Mail uses the Subject (as text), and I imagine there are other applications that do the same. This of course leads to any number of frustrations, including re: re: test not being threaded with re: test, and mail from completely different conversations (with the same subject line) being threaded together. Gmail is just that smart. It primarily uses the subject line, though I think it pays attention to some other things, as I can't recall having the problem Kieren describes. I think Gmail also looks for similarities in the body of the message. It has some awareness of how the body of a message is structured, as it commonly hides signature blocks (including the lilypond-user mailing list block) I'm certain Gmail will also be able to figure out the mail you are replying to without referring to any header at all as long as any Gmail user has not yet deleted it (and probably even afterwards). But for a normal mail server/client setup not relying on a universal freely associating data kraken on the server end, one needs to have information as specific as a Message Id in order to do reliable queries. Regarding the actual subject matter, my previously-voiced frustration is that the individual messages are *not* set up to reply to the list by default. Don't use Reply to sender if you don't want to reply to the sender. As a matter of consistency, I think both the individual messages and the digest should reply to the list, or neither. Do you mean to imply that the digest _does_ add an explicit Reply-To: header and it goes to the list? That would indeed be on the less than sane side. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:48 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Not sure about that. The information usually is available in the headers, and as far as I can tell, Gmail does preserve and maintain it as well. So unless someone breaks the chain, it would seem like a poor choice not to actually use it. It may pass on the headers just fine, but as far as how the information is used for what I see, probably not as much. Don't use Reply to sender if you don't want to reply to the sender. (1) 99% of the time, if I'm replying to a message, I'm intending to reply to the list. Defaults are usually selected to in some way minimize effort, which brings me to (2), I'm lazy. Reply all requires extra mouse-clicks. Poor choice of user interface then. Perhaps poor for me personally, but it is likely based on having a minimalist user interface and realizing that most people only reply to messages. It also discourages the delightful idiots who insist on replying all to a mass mailing (when the original sender didn't have the decency or know-how to stick the recipient names in the bcc). As a matter of consistency, I think both the individual messages and the digest should reply to the list, or neither. Do you mean to imply that the digest _does_ add an explicit Reply-To: header and it goes to the list? That would indeed be on the less than sane side. I have no idea what the digest does or doesn't do. I am replying to your prior statement, Maybe the reply-to header of the digest should not even point to the list? As Tim pointed out, the non-digest messages do not and your proposal would be logically consistent with that. Not really. I was suggesting _adding_ a Reply-To header, but one that does not go back to the list. I am simply stating a preference for the reply-to of both to do so. As I said, replies from a digest rarely make sense because of breaking the message threading. This is a question of whether it makes sense from the human side or the computer side. From the computer side, certainly. However, adding a reply-to target doesn't fix that. If someone's going to reply from the digest, they're going to reply from the digest. It's a question of whether we force them to add the list address to the to box. From the human side, I have no problem understanding the message threading if someone has properly removed the parts of the digest they aren't responding to and have replaced the digest subject line with the one from the actual conversation. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
Carl Peterson carlopeter...@gmail.com writes: This is a question of whether it makes sense from the human side or the computer side. From the computer side, certainly. However, adding a reply-to target doesn't fix that. If someone's going to reply from the digest, they're going to reply from the digest. You would likely be surprised. In the presence of a Reply-To header, both the standard Reply and Reply-to-all _have_ to go to the given address and nowhere else. Which is why adding a Reply-To header is a strong and often annoying measure. My mail reader Gnus offers an extra obscure Reply to mail with broken Reply-To header command for bypassing this, but in a web interface, this should not be an obvious choice. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
Carl Peterson carlopeter...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:04 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: I'm certain Gmail will also be able to figure out the mail you are replying to without referring to any header at all as long as any Gmail user has not yet deleted it (and probably even afterwards). But for a normal mail server/client setup not relying on a universal freely associating data kraken on the server end, one needs to have information as specific as a Message Id in order to do reliable queries. My understanding is that Gmail does not cross reference messages from multiple accounts to figure out threading. I was being facetious here. I'm certain they don't want to point out the full amount of referencing/indexing/correlation they are doing. But they are not getting billions of advertising dollars for nothing. I'll also issue a mea culpa of my own. When you mentioned threading, I was not thinking in the sense of a tree. I was only considering the idea of a conversation, understanding which messages belong together. To my knowledge, Gmail does not attempt to figure out who is replying to whom, but uses a chronological sequencing. Not sure about that. The information usually is available in the headers, and as far as I can tell, Gmail does preserve and maintain it as well. So unless someone breaks the chain, it would seem like a poor choice not to actually use it. Don't use Reply to sender if you don't want to reply to the sender. (1) 99% of the time, if I'm replying to a message, I'm intending to reply to the list. Defaults are usually selected to in some way minimize effort, which brings me to (2), I'm lazy. Reply all requires extra mouse-clicks. Poor choice of user interface then. As a matter of consistency, I think both the individual messages and the digest should reply to the list, or neither. Do you mean to imply that the digest _does_ add an explicit Reply-To: header and it goes to the list? That would indeed be on the less than sane side. I have no idea what the digest does or doesn't do. I am replying to your prior statement, Maybe the reply-to header of the digest should not even point to the list? As Tim pointed out, the non-digest messages do not and your proposal would be logically consistent with that. Not really. I was suggesting _adding_ a Reply-To header, but one that does not go back to the list. I am simply stating a preference for the reply-to of both to do so. As I said, replies from a digest rarely make sense because of breaking the message threading. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
At 14:50 12/09/2013 -0500, Evan Driscoll wrote: Now, that being said and because I'm sure no one cares, IMO the way the Lilypond list is set up (reply goes to the sender) is *absolutely* the correct way to run a mailing list, and the alternative is completely maddening. It's not just your opinion: mailing list processors have no business inserting a Reply-To: header, which is instead the sole domain of the message's author. RFC 2822 appears to require this: When the 'Reply-To:' field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the *author* of the message suggests that replies be sent (my emphasis). The author of a message, of course, is not the list. What action is *common* is only one of the two things that should be considered when assigning a default. Also should be considered is how damaging the other choice is. Replying to the list when you want to respond just to the sender has the potential to be a much more damaging action than replying to just the sender when you want to send to the list. Exactly: the right way fails safe. A message intended to be public may get sent privately by mistake - a minor inconvenience that can easily be remedied by sending the message again correctly. The use of a Reply-To: header directed to a list risks messages intended to be private being sent publicly - a unfortunate consequence that simply cannot be undone. This mailing list is configured unusually but properly. Brian Barker ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: As I said, replies from a digest rarely make sense because of breaking the message threading. This is true, or at least I'm willing to take it as true - but if a digest exists, then it would be very strange and frustrating to try to disallow replying to it. Otherwise, if a digest subscriber wanted to reply to something, he'd have to travel backwards in time and subscribe himself to the individual messages instead, in time to catch the one he was interested in. :) So - cancel the digest? Or accept that replies will continue to come from it. I can't see any possible choice other than those two. People should remember to do the right thing every time, and people should be required to use mail client software that not only does the right thing but also steadfastly refuses to do the wrong thing. But people are not going to change like that unless Mr Kastrup makes a personal visit to each of their homes - and maybe not even then. :) -- David R ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
The main reason I'm responding to this is to point out that if you use digests, it's possible to configure it so that it sends each message as an attachment instead of just dumping them all into the message body. If you see something you want to respond to, you can just open up the corresponding attachment and hit reply to that. To set this up, go to the mailmain page (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/lilypond-user), find the Get MIME or Plain Text Digests? question (currently the third), and set it to to MIME. A caveat: It's not the greatest interface, for third reasons. First, depending on your email client you *may* have to open each attachment to read the contents. However, this isn't a problem with Thunderbird and probably others that display text attachments inline with the email text, and what you see if you open the email in Thunderbird (or look at it in the preview pane) is basically identical to the plain-text digest mode. Second, if you're using something like Thunderbird that does so, finding the attachment that corresponds to a message sometimes takes a couple of tries, especially because each message actually comes through twice and (at least in Thunderbird) you can only reply to one of them. Not sure what's up with that. Third, it seems to lead to Re: Re: headings for some reason. Not sure what's up with that either. As a result it's not the best choice for everyone, but if you're like me and want to cut down on the number of emails, but still skim over them for ones of interest, but almost never reply, but want to be careful to provide the correct in-reply-to etc. headers, I think it works well. Evan [I have reservations about sending the rest of this because I don't want to carry the topic to far afield, but what the hell.] Now, that being said and because I'm sure no one cares, IMO the way the Lilypond list is set up (reply goes to the sender) is *absolutely* the correct way to run a mailing list, and the alternative is completely maddening. On 9/12/2013 1:21 PM, Carl Peterson wrote: (1) 99% of the time, if I'm replying to a message, I'm intending to reply to the list. Defaults are usually selected to in some way minimize effort, which brings me to (2), I'm lazy. Reply all requires extra mouse-clicks. Here's the flip side of that argument. What action is *common* is only one of the two things that should be considered when assigning a default. Also should be considered is how damaging the other choice is. Replying to the list when you want to respond just to the sender has the potential to be a much more damaging action than replying to just the sender when you want to send to the list. On 9/12/2013 2:03 PM, Carl Peterson wrote: It also discourages the delightful idiots who insist on replying all to a mass mailing (when the original sender didn't have the decency or know-how to stick the recipient names in the bcc). Personally I never really got that argument. I almost always reply all to discussions like that. Why? The following two assumptions: 1) If the original sender CC'd someone, it's because they thought that person would be interested in the contents. 2) If someone is interested in an email, there's a good chance they'll be interested in follow-up emails. I definitely pay attention to who I keep on the CC list and will remove people if I have reason to believe the followup is a lot less relevant for them, but that's my general rule of thumb. Maybe it's just because I don't get enough emails, but I get *way* more annoyed when it seems like I've been dropped from a mail thread that was relevant to me then I do when I get extra emails that are *not* relevant. Personally, I don't see the reason for BCC besides a CYA move. Evan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
Evan Driscoll edrisc...@wisc.edu writes: I definitely pay attention to who I keep on the CC list and will remove people if I have reason to believe the followup is a lot less relevant for them, but that's my general rule of thumb. Maybe it's just because I don't get enough emails, but I get *way* more annoyed when it seems like I've been dropped from a mail thread that was relevant to me then I do when I get extra emails that are *not* relevant. Personally, I don't see the reason for BCC besides a CYA move. I use Bcc for my monthly (more or less) reports to people sponsoring my work on LilyPond. The nominal recipient is myself then. Most people don't _want_ their mail address to be distributed to a lot of people when they are not member of an actual discussion group. This is similar for mailing lists mostly used for announcements: not everybody subscribing to announcements wants to have his address advertised to other recipients. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Evan Driscoll edrisc...@wisc.edu wrote: On 9/12/2013 2:03 PM, Carl Peterson wrote: It also discourages the delightful idiots who insist on replying all to a mass mailing (when the original sender didn't have the decency or know-how to stick the recipient names in the bcc). Personally I never really got that argument. I almost always reply all to discussions like that. Why? The following two assumptions: 1) If the original sender CC'd someone, it's because they thought that person would be interested in the contents. 2) If someone is interested in an email, there's a good chance they'll be interested in follow-up emails. I definitely pay attention to who I keep on the CC list and will remove people if I have reason to believe the followup is a lot less relevant for them, but that's my general rule of thumb. Maybe it's just because I don't get enough emails, but I get *way* more annoyed when it seems like I've been dropped from a mail thread that was relevant to me then I do when I get extra emails that are *not* relevant. Personally, I don't see the reason for BCC besides a CYA move. There are multiple reasons for using BCC. 1) If the email is a report of some kind, but is not intended for discussion, then the BCC allows the people who are interested in the report to receive the report, and makes it so that queries go back to the sender, who can choose what to do with that query. 2) If a person is one of those who sends stuff to everyone in their mailing list (shudders), then it means that if the person didn't want to receive it in the first place, they don't have to deal with the responses that result. 3) It respects the privacy of individuals. It is, unfortunately, not uncommon for people who are on one mailing list to use the recipient addresses to seed the recipient list of their own mailing list. 4) As a follow-up to #3 (and tangentially related to your use case), there may be times when a person needs to know but their identity cannot, for various reasons, be revealed to others. This is similar to what David posted (I just saw his reply come through) about donor reports. Donors can't be anonymous if everyone sees that they're donating. Many who send out frequent (legitimate) mass emails are having to utilize third-party list services, as more and more mail servers and clients are filtering the bulk recipient lists out as spam. Thus, the need for BCC is lessening (to being principally a preventative measure), but the need still exists. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
David Rogers davidandrewrog...@gmail.com writes: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: As I said, replies from a digest rarely make sense because of breaking the message threading. This is true, or at least I'm willing to take it as true - but if a digest exists, then it would be very strange and frustrating to try to disallow replying to it. Otherwise, if a digest subscriber wanted to reply to something, he'd have to travel backwards in time and subscribe himself to the individual messages instead, in time to catch the one he was interested in. :) Look it up on Gmane and reply to it individually. I've actually done that more than once. Yes, it's inconvenient. It's easier to read the whole traffic on a Gmane interface (I use Gmane via nntp). -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
- Original Message - From: David Rogers davidandrewrog...@gmail.com To: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:02 PM Subject: Re: mea máxima culpa David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: As I said, replies from a digest rarely make sense because of breaking the message threading. This is true, or at least I'm willing to take it as true - but if a digest exists, then it would be very strange and frustrating to try to disallow replying to it. Otherwise, if a digest subscriber wanted to reply to something, he'd have to travel backwards in time and subscribe himself to the individual messages instead, in time to catch the one he was interested in. :) So - cancel the digest? Or accept that replies will continue to come from it. I can't see any possible choice other than those two. People should remember to do the right thing every time, and people should be required to use mail client software that not only does the right thing but also steadfastly refuses to do the wrong thing. But people are not going to change like that unless Mr Kastrup makes a personal visit to each of their homes - and maybe not even then. :) -- David R Folks. Chill. This overlong thread was in request to a very polite request not to quote a digest when replying to a single message. The quoter _slightly_ over-responded to that, but that's all. As an issue, it rarely surfaces on this list. Let's get back to developing LilyPond rather than sorting mailing list etiquette. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
David Kastrup dak at gnu.org writes: Well yes, a thread is logically a _tree_. A chronological sort only renders a list, and that's just not useful for tracking a particular conversation to its start. FWIW, I receive the digest and when I want to reply to a message, I use gmane. It's slightly less convenient, but I consider it to be at least polite. As far as I know, it does handle the headers properly. http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.general Incidentally, if you look at recent posts via gmane, you'll see that the broken threads are totally obvious. hjh ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net writes: On Sep 10, 2013, at 11:14 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Patrick or Cynthia Karl pck...@mac.com writes: From: Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@gmail.com To: Patrick or Cynthia Karl pck...@mac.com [deleting billions of lines] From: James Harkins jamshar...@gmail.com Patrick or Cynthia Karl pckarl at mac.com writes: Well, I don't have an answer to the question, but... a reminder... it is VERY uncool to quote an *entire digest* when you're replying to only one message. I am so sorry and will try to do much better. Maybe the reply-to header of the digest should not even point to the list? Replying to a digest makes no sense with regard to message threading It would be logically consistent since the reply-to header is not set to the list for non-digest subscribers, but what would be the alternative? no-reply-lilyp...@gnu.org? The normal way would be to put it on moderation, with a human deciding whether to silently discard it (appropriate when the address is used for scattering unwanted mail to unsuspecting victims forged into the From header) or reply with a canned message. Whether it gets into moderation by being sent to a special address, or by detecting a subject title typical for an unedited reply to a digest (any useful reply would edit the subject title to refer to the actual post rather than the whole digest) is a different question. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Maybe the reply-to header of the digest should not even point to the list? Replying to a digest makes no sense with regard to message threading anyway. I have strong opinions about this, in part because I participate in another mailing list that uses the no-reply trick for the digest. In my opinion, you are proposing a government approach here: you are proposing legislative action to solve a problem that only occurs rarely, and when it does occur is easily solved through education. I don't think you need to make it harder for those of us who have learned the lesson, just because someone does something inappropriate once every few months. -- Tim Roberts, t...@probo.com Providenza Boekelheide, Inc. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
Tim Roberts t...@probo.com writes: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Maybe the reply-to header of the digest should not even point to the list? Replying to a digest makes no sense with regard to message threading anyway. I have strong opinions about this, in part because I participate in another mailing list that uses the no-reply trick for the digest. In my opinion, you are proposing a government approach here: you are proposing legislative action to solve a problem that only occurs rarely, and when it does occur is easily solved through education. I don't think you need to make it harder for those of us who have learned the lesson, just because someone does something inappropriate once every few months. How does it make it harder? As I said, replying to a digest makes no sense with regard to message threading anyway. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
mea máxima culpa
From: Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@gmail.com To: Patrick or Cynthia Karl pck...@mac.com [deleting billions of lines] From: James Harkins jamshar...@gmail.com Patrick or Cynthia Karl pckarl at mac.com writes: Well, I don't have an answer to the question, but... a reminder... it is VERY uncool to quote an *entire digest* when you're replying to only one message. I am so sorry and will try to do much better. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
Patrick or Cynthia Karl pck...@mac.com writes: From: Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@gmail.com To: Patrick or Cynthia Karl pck...@mac.com [deleting billions of lines] From: James Harkins jamshar...@gmail.com Patrick or Cynthia Karl pckarl at mac.com writes: Well, I don't have an answer to the question, but... a reminder... it is VERY uncool to quote an *entire digest* when you're replying to only one message. I am so sorry and will try to do much better. Maybe the reply-to header of the digest should not even point to the list? Replying to a digest makes no sense with regard to message threading anyway. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: mea máxima culpa
On Sep 10, 2013, at 11:14 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Patrick or Cynthia Karl pck...@mac.com writes: From: Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@gmail.com To: Patrick or Cynthia Karl pck...@mac.com [deleting billions of lines] From: James Harkins jamshar...@gmail.com Patrick or Cynthia Karl pckarl at mac.com writes: Well, I don't have an answer to the question, but... a reminder... it is VERY uncool to quote an *entire digest* when you're replying to only one message. I am so sorry and will try to do much better. Maybe the reply-to header of the digest should not even point to the list? Replying to a digest makes no sense with regard to message threading It would be logically consistent since the reply-to header is not set to the list for non-digest subscribers, but what would be the alternative? no-reply-lilyp...@gnu.org? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
