Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
solved my problems, it turns out that I was subscribed using an aliased email (just shows how long I'm on the list, haven't used that in about 7 years I think. I'm surprised tau left the alias). Thanks On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 12:07:36 +0200 "Barry.R" wrote: > On Friday 30 January 2009 22:04:59 Micha Feigin wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:06:55 +0200 > > Shachar Shemesh wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > I could understand the use for "reply to list" when some people would > > > get double the emails against their wishes. This, however, is no longer > > > an issue with most modern mailing list managers. > > > > Well, at the moment I'm getting double emails from this list for this whole > > thread and for some reason when I post to the list I get a message that my > > mail is waiting moderator approval since I'm not registered, but still > > sends me all list mails, doesn't seem to unregister me and registering > > again doesn't seem to do any good either. Any ideas or a list moderator out > > there that can check my list status to try and see where it is wrong? > > > > Thanks > Snap! Same here, only I'm getting double emails for everything so far, not > just this thread. > > Thanks, > Barry > > > > > Shachar > > > > > > ___ > > > Linux-il mailing list > > > Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il > > > http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il > > > > ___ > > Linux-il mailing list > > Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il > > http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il > > > ___ > Linux-il mailing list > Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il > http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il > ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
On Friday 30 January 2009 22:04:59 Micha Feigin wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:06:55 +0200 > Shachar Shemesh wrote: > > [...] > > > I could understand the use for "reply to list" when some people would > > get double the emails against their wishes. This, however, is no longer > > an issue with most modern mailing list managers. > > Well, at the moment I'm getting double emails from this list for this whole > thread and for some reason when I post to the list I get a message that my > mail is waiting moderator approval since I'm not registered, but still > sends me all list mails, doesn't seem to unregister me and registering > again doesn't seem to do any good either. Any ideas or a list moderator out > there that can check my list status to try and see where it is wrong? > > Thanks Snap! Same here, only I'm getting double emails for everything so far, not just this thread. Thanks, Barry > > Shachar > > > > ___ > > Linux-il mailing list > > Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il > > http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il > > ___ > Linux-il mailing list > Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il > http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
Micha Feigin wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:06:55 +0200 Shachar Shemesh wrote: [...] I could understand the use for "reply to list" when some people would get double the emails against their wishes. This, however, is no longer an issue with most modern mailing list managers. Well, at the moment I'm getting double emails from this list for this whole thread and for some reason when I post to the list I get a message that my mail is waiting moderator approval since I'm not registered, but still sends me all list mails, doesn't seem to unregister me and registering again doesn't seem to do any good either. Any ideas or a list moderator out there that can check my list status to try and see where it is wrong? Please forward all copies you get of this email. Make sure the forward is with all the headers. I'll try to have a look at it. Shachar Thanks Here is the situation as I see it: Reply to all: You respect each individual's preferences regarding how many copies they want to receive. Reply: You want to send a private reply, only to the sender (impossible when the list has "reply to list") And the non-standard buttons Reply to sender: Only makes sense in order to override lists with the broken "reply to list" header. Reply to list: You force people like me to get only one copy against my wish, and you are proud of it. To me, it seems obvious that the polite thing to do, especially on a list that has no-dupes support, is to do "reply to all" by default. Since I think this is the right default for private communication as well for the reasons stated above, I don't see a problem. I am, however, open to the possibility that I'm wrong, if anyone wishes to enlighten me. At least with claws mail, in addition to the list, if you have a reply to address it also adds that to the cc field, don't know if others do the same. Yes, that's precisely what "reply to all" does. Put the original sender in the "to" and everyone else in the "cc". On the other hand, I've noticed that there are two from fields at the moment, one of the original poster and the other: >From linux-il-boun...@cs.huji.ac.il Wed Jan 28 18:04:20 2009 First, I didn't see that. Second, what you quote is not a header. An SMTP header has a colon (:) between header and data. What you are quoting is the SMTP MTAs log line, and is ignored by any sane mail client. Looked at the source, I'm seeing the same from field twice, probably doesn't make a difference, just pointed it out in case it does. It's been some time since I dealt with the smtp protocol so I don't remember the specifics. Shachar ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:06:55 +0200 Shachar Shemesh wrote: [...] > > I could understand the use for "reply to list" when some people would > get double the emails against their wishes. This, however, is no longer > an issue with most modern mailing list managers. > Well, at the moment I'm getting double emails from this list for this whole thread and for some reason when I post to the list I get a message that my mail is waiting moderator approval since I'm not registered, but still sends me all list mails, doesn't seem to unregister me and registering again doesn't seem to do any good either. Any ideas or a list moderator out there that can check my list status to try and see where it is wrong? Thanks > Here is the situation as I see it: > Reply to all: You respect each individual's preferences regarding how > many copies they want to receive. > Reply: You want to send a private reply, only to the sender (impossible > when the list has "reply to list") > And the non-standard buttons > Reply to sender: Only makes sense in order to override lists with the > broken "reply to list" header. > Reply to list: You force people like me to get only one copy against my > wish, and you are proud of it. > > To me, it seems obvious that the polite thing to do, especially on a > list that has no-dupes support, is to do "reply to all" by default. > Since I think this is the right default for private communication as > well for the reasons stated above, I don't see a problem. I am, however, > open to the possibility that I'm wrong, if anyone wishes to enlighten me. > > At least with claws mail, in addition to the list, if you have a reply to > > address it also adds that to the cc field, don't know if others do the same. > > > Yes, that's precisely what "reply to all" does. Put the original sender > in the "to" and everyone else in the "cc". > > On the other hand, I've noticed that there are two from fields at the > > moment, one of the original poster and the other: > > >From linux-il-boun...@cs.huji.ac.il Wed Jan 28 18:04:20 2009 > > > First, I didn't see that. Second, what you quote is not a header. An > SMTP header has a colon (:) between header and data. What you are > quoting is the SMTP MTAs log line, and is ignored by any sane mail client. > Looked at the source, I'm seeing the same from field twice, probably doesn't make a difference, just pointed it out in case it does. It's been some time since I dealt with the smtp protocol so I don't remember the specifics. > Shachar > > ___ > Linux-il mailing list > Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il > http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il > ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
2009/1/31 Shachar Shemesh : > I think this is a good point to agree to disagree. > What is, Shachar? You didn't quote anything. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת ا-ب-ت-ث-ج-ح-خ-د-ذ-ر-ز-س-ش-ص-ض-ط-ظ-ع-غ-ف-ق-ك-ل-م-ن-ه-و-ي А-Б-В-Г-Д-Е-Ё-Ж-З-И-Й-К-Л-М-Н-О-П-Р-С-Т-У-Ф-Х-Ц-Ч-Ш-Щ-Ъ-Ы-Ь-Э-Ю-Я а-б-в-г-д-е-ё-ж-з-и-й-к-л-м-н-о-п-р-с-т-у-ф-х-ц-ч-ш-щ-ъ-ы-ь-э-ю-я ä-ö-ü-ß-Ä-Ö-Ü ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
I think this is a good point to agree to disagree. Shachar ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
I should also mention that if one is not careful and presses Reply instead of Reply To All, the reply is off-list! So many times I've gotten private mail from _this_list_ when I'm certain it was meant to be public. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת ا-ب-ت-ث-ج-ح-خ-د-ذ-ر-ز-س-ش-ص-ض-ط-ظ-ع-غ-ف-ق-ك-ل-م-ن-ه-و-ي А-Б-В-Г-Д-Е-Ё-Ж-З-И-Й-К-Л-М-Н-О-П-Р-С-Т-У-Ф-Х-Ц-Ч-Ш-Щ-Ъ-Ы-Ь-Э-Ю-Я а-б-в-г-д-е-ё-ж-з-и-й-к-л-м-н-о-п-р-с-т-у-ф-х-ц-ч-ш-щ-ъ-ы-ь-э-ю-я ä-ö-ü-ß-Ä-Ö-Ü ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
2009/1/30 Oleg Goldshmidt : > Well, this whole topic is almost as old as Linux-IL, but since we are > at it again... IMHO, the "reply-to-all to send to the list" paradigm > is totally broken. If I send a message to a discussion mailing list > such as Linux-IL I expect any responses to be sent to the list, > period. If I reply to a mailing list posting I reply to the list, > unless I have a really good reason to do something else. This has been > the netiquette of group communications since the times of Usenet. By > the way, the semantics means that the list should be in "To", and > anyone else in "Cc", not the other way around. Sophisticated filtering > rules, for instance, may treat different headers differently (see > below). > This is, and still is, the only list where this is still a problem. Only in linux-il do I see the TO and CC lines fill up. I agree with you: Reply should go to the list. Only on Linux-IL mus I do Reply All, and then I see "Oleg" in the To and "linux-il" in the CC. Basackwards. I usually edit it, but sometime (like now) I'm just lazy and leave it. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת ا-ب-ت-ث-ج-ح-خ-د-ذ-ر-ز-س-ش-ص-ض-ط-ظ-ع-غ-ف-ق-ك-ل-م-ن-ه-و-ي А-Б-В-Г-Д-Е-Ё-Ж-З-И-Й-К-Л-М-Н-О-П-Р-С-Т-У-Ф-Х-Ц-Ч-Ш-Щ-Ъ-Ы-Ь-Э-Ю-Я а-б-в-г-д-е-ё-ж-з-и-й-к-л-м-н-о-п-р-с-т-у-ф-х-ц-ч-ш-щ-ъ-ы-ь-э-ю-я ä-ö-ü-ß-Ä-Ö-Ü ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009, Shachar Shemesh wrote about "Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started": > >Would you want to > >be in a mailing list where a few people get the list's message more quickly > >then you do (because they're on the CC - Shachar wants this to happen) so > >whenever you read some thread, it is was already hashed to death by the > >original poster and one or two others? > > > I should hope that the list is not that slower than the direct email. If > it is, then the very time it takes for emails to travel is a potential > discussion killer in its own. But the point is that you also think that the list *is* slower than direct email. Not because the list server adds some large lag (usually the lag is pretty small), but because of the lag to *notice* the message in the list's folder. You say that you want this lag to go down for people who already participated in this thread. I don't understand why should they get preferencial treatment, and why on just one thread of what might be an entire tree of discussion. > >I strongly feel that mailing lists should have just one mode of > >communication: > >you read a mail on the mailing list, and reply to it to the entire list. > > > It's this "this is the only mode" attitude that I find problematic. > Every rule has an exception. Exceptions should be inconvenient, and the rule should be natural and convenient. I claim that the rule should be to reply only to the list - not to the author of the message, not to half a dozen people who happened to participate on the one thread that you're now responding to (which might be part of a whole tree of messages that you've read). Doing this is natural and convenient with reply-to, and next-to-impossible without it. > >There is no reason whatsoever to allow people who are not subscribers to > >get this mail. > Huh? That's right. If somebody wants to send a message to the list, he should make the effort to subscribe first. If he doesn't bother to subscribe and still posts, I don't care if he never sees the replies. I write replies for everyone on the list, NOT for one person. This is what a list is all about. > > There is no reason whatsoever to cross-post a discussion > > > Cross posting is definitely impolite, but saying "there is no reason" is > taking it far too far for my taste. Again, every time I say "no reason" means in 99% of the cases there is no reason. Let this 1% case be more complicated. Let's make in the 99% case natural and convenient to do the right thing. > > There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to get > >part of a discussion thread to his main inbox instead of the mailing list > >folder > Except I don't see that happening. Ah? Shachar, if there's a whole tree of a discussion, and you answer to one message, you'll start getting replies to your message (and replies to it and so on). But as people continue to respond to messages in other sections of the tree or even to the same message that you responded to, you won't get those messages to your inbox. You'll get a very partial view of the ongoing discussion to your inbox. This is not a theoretical problem - I see it all the time on linux-il, when I find myself reading answers in my inbox, only to later notice that actually there are more answers in the list folder that I haven't noticed. > >In fact, I see this happening all the time on the corporate email where > >I work (someone writing an announcement to 100 people, and then one > >silly person accidentally replies to everyone instead of the announcer). > > > But is that someone hitting the wrong button, or someone being ignorant > about what he is doing? Nothing in the world will save us from > ignorance, not without making the operation we both agree should be > default more difficult. It is someone who got used to clicking "reply to all" on everything because just "reply" no longer does the right thing for hardly any case, and then he used "reply to all" as usual in a case where he shouldn't... -- Nadav Har'El| Saturday, Jan 31 2009, 7 Shevat 5769 n...@math.technion.ac.il |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |The 3 stages of sex: Tri-weekly, try http://nadav.harel.org.il |weekly, try weakly. ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
Nadav Har'El wrote: When I was a child, one of the most important rules of etiquette that I learned was that there should be "no secrets in company" Just so my position is clear. I will stress again that the default should be that the list be CCed. I just think this should be done with a "reply to all". Would you want to be in a mailing list where a few people get the list's message more quickly then you do (because they're on the CC - Shachar wants this to happen) so whenever you read some thread, it is was already hashed to death by the original poster and one or two others? I should hope that the list is not that slower than the direct email. If it is, then the very time it takes for emails to travel is a potential discussion killer in its own. I strongly feel that mailing lists should have just one mode of communication: you read a mail on the mailing list, and reply to it to the entire list. It's this "this is the only mode" attitude that I find problematic. Every rule has an exception. There is no reason whatsoever to allow people who are not subscribers to get this mail. Huh? There is no reason whatsoever to cross-post a discussion Cross posting is definitely impolite, but saying "there is no reason" is taking it far too far for my taste. There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to get part of a discussion thread to his main inbox instead of the mailing list folder Except I don't see that happening. But what I REALLY DON'T LIKE is when people start confusing their opinions with progress. The "no reply-to" isn't the "standard way" or "modern way" or "better way" as some people paint it. I think the very fact that I'm discussing this on its merit should show you I am not taking it to be "the only way". The "considered harmful" is merely a document that already took the time to enumerate my reasoning, which is the only reason I point to it - to save me retyping things. I even took the time to highlight the points from that document which I found to be most important to discuss, in a way that (I hope) makes sense even without reading the original. I don't think it is so clear-cut. A list which is like you say - two-person conversations which other people incidentally overhear, will not be a good mailing list. Even at a social gathering, not everyone is talking to everyone. Sub-conversations form, and even there some people are more dominant in any given second than others. Insisting that all communication be directed only at the list seems, to me, almost as impolite as conducting private discussions about public matters. In a good mailing list, people write postings with everyone on the list as the intended audience - even those who don't answer or simply haven't answered yet (someone can join a discussion thread late in the game, simply because he was asleep when it started, or whatever). As a rule, I agree. As the only mode of communication possible or conceivable, I don't. If I need to answer you in private (say, because what I have to say is based on my personal knowledge of you, and is too personal for the entire list to know), then that very same use of the second person in the email will This should be a very rare exception. I agree that it should be rare. I disagree that we should make it too difficult. We should care about the common case, not the rare exception. No. We should care about both, giving the proper weights according to frequency and ease of handling (and cost in case we encouraged errors). Like I said before, the fact that some people (e.g. - me) DO want to receive two copies means that a reply-to is not the right choice for everyone even in the common case. Either way, the "forward" button is not a replacement to the "reply" I think Oleg over-emphasised the "forward" button. In mutt, for example, It's a poor example. I use thunderbird, which has only the classic buttons (Reply, Reply to all and Forward). Surely you will not tell me to switch to Mutt, merely so I can use Linux-IL. when I press "reply" and there is a "reply-to", it asks me whether I want to reply to the reply-to address (the list), and the default is "yes". If, however, I press no, then I get to send a reply to the person. Then you will need to answer me another question from the "considered harmful" essay. What if the person originally had a "reply to" for his emails, which the list's "reply to" over wrote - how do you know where to email him? And, like I said in my previous email, if I get it wrong, the failure is catastrophic. This is the only objection raised by the anti-reply-to crowd which I ever understood. This is correct, but it has to be weighed against all the other benefits (personal and social) of having a reply-to. Which, like I said, are not as clear cut as you put them. Personally, I think that even this argument is flawed: if you do have separate "reply to all" and "reply" buttons (like you advocate),
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Shachar Shemesh wrote:
>>
>> If I'm summarizing your argument correctly, you are saying that mailing
>> list discussions should ALWAYS be public, no matter what. That it is the
>> mailing list that I'm conversing with, and not the individuals who
>> participate in the mailing list thread.
By default the discussion is public, and I am conversing with the
list. There is no contradiction with list members addressing each
other in the 2nd person. After all the most typical thread starts with
a question, someone answering that question, someone else pointing out
an error or omission in the answer, etc. It starts as a public
question and continues as a public discussion. 3rd person is used
often as well.
"No matter what" is your addition. I only think it should require an
effort to switch a mailing list discussion to a private channel. If,
e.g., Shachar and Oleg want to discuss the same topic privately for
whatever reason it is reasonable to expect this to be a conscious
decision followed by a trivial operation performed by one of them.
I see a difference between a list posting and an email to me and a
bunch of others, and I would like to distinguish between these cases.
Now I can't. I apply heuristics ("This is a mail from Shachar to me,
is Linux-IL also in To or Cc? If yes, then most likely it is a mailing
list posting and I am in To only by chance."). I cannot distinguish
between a message to a list with a copy to me (because the sender is
not sure whether I am subscribed?) and a message to me with a copy to
a list (because it might be interesting?). I would like to assign
different attributes to the message in these two cases, but I can't.
Note that I used "a list" and not "the list" in the previous
paragraph. Use cases such as crossposting or a person leaving a list
because he is tired of it or doesn't want to clutter his Blackberry
while traveling or whatever, and everybody keeping CCing him, look
very problematic to me indeed. Because of this, I always check (or at
least try to) the recipient list when I post and filter it manually,
so it is at least as bad for me as your fear of sending a private mail
to a list.
> On further reflection, I do think that there are cases where your argument
> may make sense. I think that your categorizing lists into two types is an
> over-simplification.
Let me assure you again that it is not my invention. The distinction
is explicit in the very *definition* of mailman, cf. the very first
line of http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/ that says,
"Mailman is free software for managing electronic mail discussion and
e-newsletter lists."
"Discussion" and "newsletter" are the two types of lists I alluded to
(I called the second one "announcement" lists).
If you look further into the mailman docs you will find two options to
set reply-to - poster and list - with the following explanation, see,
e.g.,
http://staff.imsa.edu/~ckolar/mailman/mailman-administration-v2.html :
"When poster is selected, the reply-to line will be written by Mailman
so that persons hitting reply in their mail program will send their
response back to the individual who posted the note. When this value
is set to "this list" the reply-to line will be rewritten so that
persons hitting reply in their mail program will send their response
back to the list itself. When this value is set to "explicit address"
the Reply-To header will use the value that is provided in the field
below.
While the program suggests that this be set to poster, you should
consider the purpose of the list in selecting this value. Lists that
intend to focus on discussion are best set to "list" to encourage
conversation. Lists used for announcements are best set to poster to
prevent unwanted traffic and the inadvertent broadcast of replies."
My interpretation of the default choice is that there are many more
"newsletter" lists created quickly on an ad-hoc basis ("we are
organizing a conference/customer meeting/whatever", "here is a version
control commit list for the project", etc.) than discussion lists with
much higher longevity and better chances of careful configuration.
This was certainly the case for me when I used mailman extensively in
the course of my work, running projects, etc.
> Don't get me wrong. I think all of the above is a good thing. I just think
> that, in such a list, putting reply-to is harmful.
Don't get _me_ wrong. ;-) I do not intend to take over list
management, and believe me that I appreciate the time and effort you
invest into it. And I will be the first to say that as long as you
administer the list your opinion weighs more than mine, and whoever
wants to "fix" it should offer the community his/her services as an
alternative administrator.
I have survived with the settings I don't like long enough to assume I
will survive longer still. I just suggested to reconsider the settings
(they do make my life harder than it could have been) and tr
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
Hi Shachar and Oleg, I decided to reply now just so it be known that Oleg's opinion isn't bizarre or outlandish, but rather an opinion held by many. I agree with every word that Oleg said on this subject. On Sat, Jan 31, 2009, Shachar Shemesh wrote about "Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started": >... > It is an interesting notion. One I totally and utterly disagree with. > When I reply to your email I am replying to YOUR email. It is not the > "mailing list", an abstract being with no intelligence, that I am > conversing with. It is Oleg Goldshmidt. If you will please read your own When I was a child, one of the most important rules of etiquette that I learned was that there should be "no secrets in company" (loosly translating from the Hebrew), i.e., if you're conversing with a group of people - be it at a table eating a meal or in our case in a mailing list - it is impolite to start private conversations. What is the rationale of this rule? When people start whispering (in our case, mailing directly), members of the group excluding from the private discussion feel bad. Moreover, the group breaks up as people start making every conversation private and never including everyone. For example, why would anyone want to be part of a mailing list that only has questions, because all the answers are public? Or a mailing list where no discussion is every concluded, because the conclusions are always reached in private discussions? Would you want to be in a mailing list where a few people get the list's message more quickly then you do (because they're on the CC - Shachar wants this to happen) so whenever you read some thread, it is was already hashed to death by the original poster and one or two others? I strongly feel that mailing lists should have just one mode of communication: you read a mail on the mailing list, and reply to it to the entire list. Only in rare situations will you decide to write a direct mail to the author of the message and not to the whole list. There is no reason whatsoever to make a list of a few people who should get another copy of this reply. There is no reason whatsoever to allow people who are not subscribers to get this mail. There is no reason whatsoever to cross-post a discussion (like Oleg said, the situation for an announcement would be different, but also there, after the initial announcement the discussion should be separate on each mailing list). There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to get part of a discussion thread to his main inbox instead of the mailing list folder (because this way, you are getting only part of the discusion, out of context, encouraging you to answer without reading other people's opinions, which is impolite). To summarize, I consider that "reply-to considered harmful" document, and Shachar's opinions that are close to it, flat-out wrong. But frankly, I don't really mind that each mailing list be run the way its administrator believes in. I will run my own mailing lists the way I believe, and Shachar and Ely will run theirs the way they like. This is perfectly fine with me, and I don't have to like every detail of how a mailing list is run to subscribe to it. But what I REALLY DON'T LIKE is when people start confusing their opinions with progress. The "no reply-to" isn't the "standard way" or "modern way" or "better way" as some people paint it. It is a way, which some people prefer, and some people prefer the exact opposite. Let's be honest about it. > email, it is not addressing my email in the third person. It addresses > it in the second person. Even your email is written to Shachar Shemesh, > while keeping in mind that the entire list reads it. It is not written > to the list, hoping that Shachar will read it. When you write: I don't think it is so clear-cut. A list which is like you say - two-person conversations which other people incidentally overhear, will not be a good mailing list. In a good mailing list, people write postings with everyone on the list as the intended audience - even those who don't answer or simply haven't answered yet (someone can join a discussion thread late in the game, simply because he was asleep when it started, or whatever). > You do not seriously think that the list has been around when Usenet was > common, nor even that the majority of this list's subscribers were. You > think that I, Shachar, have been. About the majority, I don't know. I know that I have, and I believe that when I first heard about this list (circa 1996 I believe?) Usenet was still quite popular, albeit declining. I don't know why it matters, though. Does the fact that we no longer write letters via post, mean that none of the lessons learnt in that medium has any implications on newer media? >
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
Shachar Shemesh wrote: If I'm summarizing your argument correctly, you are saying that mailing list discussions should ALWAYS be public, no matter what. That it is the mailing list that I'm conversing with, and not the individuals who participate in the mailing list thread. On further reflection, I do think that there are cases where your argument may make sense. I think that your categorizing lists into two types is an over-simplification. For example, if a list is used for communication which is limited to only one type of communication (say, business communication) of a non-personal type, I would still not put on reply to list by default, but should people make repeated mistakes regarding hitting "reply" rather than "reply to list", then I would not see it as a terrible thing. Thing is, linux-il is not such a list. We have had linux-il dinners. I can think of at least two cases of romantic involvement between two active Linux-IL participants. The list itself is not as single topic as one could assume from the name. Don't get me wrong. I think all of the above is a good thing. I just think that, in such a list, putting reply-to is harmful. Shachar ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
If I'm summarizing your argument correctly, you are saying that mailing list discussions should ALWAYS be public, no matter what. That it is the mailing list that I'm conversing with, and not the individuals who participate in the mailing list thread. It is an interesting notion. One I totally and utterly disagree with. When I reply to your email I am replying to YOUR email. It is not the "mailing list", an abstract being with no intelligence, that I am conversing with. It is Oleg Goldshmidt. If you will please read your own email, it is not addressing my email in the third person. It addresses it in the second person. Even your email is written to Shachar Shemesh, while keeping in mind that the entire list reads it. It is not written to the list, hoping that Shachar will read it. When you write: This has been the semantics of group communication since before email (surely you remember Usenet that never tolerated requests for private responses). You do not seriously think that the list has been around when Usenet was common, nor even that the majority of this list's subscribers were. You think that I, Shachar, have been. To me, this pretty much pulls the rug from under your reasoning. If I need to answer you in private (say, because what I have to say is based on my personal knowledge of you, and is too personal for the entire list to know), then that very same use of the second person in the email will make the "forward" button a non-intuitive option for me. If what I have to say is personal, but not based on prior knowledge (for example, I know you offended another list member by bringing up a sensitive subject, and I don't want to offend her myself), I might not even have your email address in my address book. Either way, the "forward" button is not a replacement to the "reply" button. The second is simply a matter of hitting "reply" and writing your email, the first requires putting in an email address, which has to be figured out. And, like I said in my previous email, if I get it wrong, the failure is catastrophic. It means a personal detail has been exposed on a public list, or I ended up insulting someone's sensitivities twice. These are actions that cannot be undone by any technical means that I know of. So, no, I don't think you adequately (at least, not to my satisfaction) answered my counter points. Shachar ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > They are listed at http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html, but the > ones I mostly want answered are these two: > > * With reply to set to the list, the failure mode is catastrophic, > while with it not, the failure mode merely means having to resend > a message. > * Sending a private message with reply to list is much much much > more difficult than sending a public message without it. I presume that both bullets above refer to the same section of the reply-to-harmful link that says, effectively, "what if I wanted to respond to the poster of the message and not to the list and hit reply by mistake?" This, as all of that document, misconstrues list postings as essentially a private email with a whole bunch of people CCed along the way. Sort of, "this posting by Shachar is an email Shachar sent to me directly and CCed a whole bunch of others since it might be interesting to them, too." This is how the author of that doc thinks, and he wants the mailing list to be configured to support this semantics. This is not what a mailing list is. When you post a message to the list you do *not* send it to me and a bunch of other people. You send it to the list, and I get it from the list as the sender, and I don't intend to reply to you and a bunch of other people but to the list only. This has been the semantics of group communication since before email (surely you remember Usenet that never tolerated requests for private responses). Whoever wants to forward a mailing list posting privately should do just that, forward, and there is a corresponding button or command in every MUA (your second bullet goes away). This looks infinitely more reasonable to me than "in order to reply to the list please reply to me and to a bunch of others, some of whom may be totally unrelated to the list and may not want to see your response or may not allow you to send anything to them" (there goes your first bullet, but I am repeating myself, sorry). As for arguments pro and contra in general, recall that there are 2 kinds of mailing lists - announcement mailing lists and discussion mailing lists. I don't have the statistics but I suspect that the majority of mailing lists out there are announcement ones. Those should not have reply-to set to the list for obvious reasons. Discussion mailing lists should. Mailman offers both options for this reason and IIRC also makes this distinction in its documentation. [I admit that the last time I set up a mailman list was at least a couple of years ago and I probably didn't check the docs then since it was the umpteenth time.] Our list is obviously a discussion one, and the discussion we conduct is with the list. IMHO, the configuration should support this semantics. So, paraphrasing the famous response to a no less famous paper by Dijkstra, "reply-to-harmful is harmful". ;-) -- Oleg Goldshmidt | o...@goldshmidt.org ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Meta-suggestion about conduct of discussions (was: Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started)
May I suggest that someone open a Web page, which will summarize the main points (both pro and con) of the discussion so far? Once such a Web page exists and is available for modifications (such as being a Wiki), we can start enforcing the netiquette of expecting people to say something only if they add something new to the discussion? This reminds me of the way my DEAF-INFO Web site got started more than 10 years ago. In a deafness related mailing list, to which I was subscribed, the same arguments were hashed again and again in endless arguments. Until one day I got tired from this and summarized the main points in a FAQ (sort of), and out of the FAQ, the Web site grew up. If such a page already exists and I am not aware of it, simply let me (and the entire list) know about it and I'll be glad to add a mention of it to my .sig in future postings to Linux-IL about this subject. On Sat, 2009-01-31 at 08:33 +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Please, if we are going to be re-hashing discussions, let's try to keep > them two-way by LISTENING and ADDRESSING the counter points. Otherwise, > we are back at people re-stating their positions again and again in the > hope that someone will magically budge. If that's what we are doing > here, I'm out of the discussion and you all can just do whatever you like. -- You haven't made an impact on the world before you caused a Debian release to be named after Snufkin. My own blog is at http://www.zak.co.il/tddpirate/ My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone. They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which I may be affiliated in any way. WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
Micha Feigin wrote: That is true, setting reply-to to point to the list is not a good solution. The proper solution is to set the list header so that modern MUA can use the reply to list button. Reply-to should reply to sender, reply-to-list should reply to list. Don't confuse the discussions. Those questions were for Oleg's idea of what should be done. My question to you are listed at http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il/msg53899.html. Again, the most important ones are: * Not all MUA have "reply to list" * "Reply to all" respect all recipient's wishes to get or not get two copies. Reply to list does not. Please, if we are going to be re-hashing discussions, let's try to keep them two-way by LISTENING and ADDRESSING the counter points. Otherwise, we are back at people re-stating their positions again and again in the hope that someone will magically budge. If that's what we are doing here, I'm out of the discussion and you all can just do whatever you like. Thanks, Shachar ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:45:33 +0200 Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: > > The only sane and foolproof method is to have mailman set the Reply-To > > field to the list address. This is a fantastically appropriate moment > > to do it. > > > > > If you want to bring THAT discussion up, then at the very least address > the stated shortcomings of your proposed setting. As long as you ignore > those, you are talking, but not listening (in other words, this isn't a > discussion). > > They are listed at http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html, but > the ones I mostly want answered are these two: > > * With reply to set to the list, the failure mode is catastrophic, > while with it not, the failure mode merely means having to resend > a message. > * Sending a private message with reply to list is much much much > more difficult than sending a public message without it. > > Shachar > That is true, setting reply-to to point to the list is not a good solution. The proper solution is to set the list header so that modern MUA can use the reply to list button. Reply-to should reply to sender, reply-to-list should reply to list. Happily mailman does this while the previous setting didn't which caused me to send a lot of private messages by mistake at the time. At the moment I don't see that there is anything to fix as all that needed fixing was fixed by the move to mailman. > > ___ > Linux-il mailing list > Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il > http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il > ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: The only sane and foolproof method is to have mailman set the Reply-To field to the list address. This is a fantastically appropriate moment to do it. If you want to bring THAT discussion up, then at the very least address the stated shortcomings of your proposed setting. As long as you ignore those, you are talking, but not listening (in other words, this isn't a discussion). They are listed at http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html, but the ones I mostly want answered are these two: * With reply to set to the list, the failure mode is catastrophic, while with it not, the failure mode merely means having to resend a message. * Sending a private message with reply to list is much much much more difficult than sending a public message without it. Shachar ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
Well, this whole topic is almost as old as Linux-IL, but since we are at it again... IMHO, the "reply-to-all to send to the list" paradigm is totally broken. If I send a message to a discussion mailing list such as Linux-IL I expect any responses to be sent to the list, period. If I reply to a mailing list posting I reply to the list, unless I have a really good reason to do something else. This has been the netiquette of group communications since the times of Usenet. By the way, the semantics means that the list should be in "To", and anyone else in "Cc", not the other way around. Sophisticated filtering rules, for instance, may treat different headers differently (see below). The current scheme complicates my MUA unnecessarily. Since this has been the situation for very long I got used to it and I get by, but it does not make it right. I do *not* want to be extra careful about the priorities of my filtering and/or duplicate-handling rules (I use a smart MUA that handles duplicates very well on its own) to keep a posting in the Linux-IL folder (where I want it) and not the "Other" folder (where it might get if I am not careful - so far I don't have such a problem, but I am forced to be careful). Unlike others, I assign a lower priority to my "Other" folder (what is called Inbox by other MUAs - the messages that my filtering rules cannot classify). On the other hand, I also have folders where I collect emails from/to a few individuals who happen to be Linux-IL subscribers - I want to distinguish between personal emails and list postings, and I assign a higher priority to personal communications. So far I have managed, but at the expense of quite complicated filtering rules that my MUA allows me to program, and at the expense of not being able to do everything I want (e.g., treat To and Cc differently). Now, what if someone adds a non-list-member to Cc or crossposts to another list? Reply-to-all will send a message to people I had no intention of sending anything to and/or to mailing lists I don't know the etiquette of, have no permission to post to, whatever. So I have to go over the To/Cc headers carefully and guess what all those addresses are... This is a huge problem, potentially. There are also problems that cannot be solved by configuring one's MUA or doing manual work at all. E.g., there is an obvious race condition when someone posts to the list and then unsubscribes for whatever reason. The current scheme means he/she will keep getting some of the list communication after unsubscribing. One might argue how serious the problem is, but it is a clear bug anyway. The current scheme made me take care to set the Reply-To field in my Linux-IL postings to the list address which is the only sane thing to do. I noticed that I am not the only one who does it. However, for this posting I am not using my MUA but rather a web interface that does not allow setting Reply-To differently from From. By the way, I found a posting in the thread with the proper "Reply-To" (set to the list) much faster than the really carefully hidden reply-to-all menu option. The only sane and foolproof method is to have mailman set the Reply-To field to the list address. This is a fantastically appropriate moment to do it. -- Oleg Goldshmidt | p...@goldshmidt.org ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:55:47PM +0200, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:06:55PM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > >> Here is the situation as I see it: >> Reply to all: You respect each individual's preferences regarding how >> many copies they want to receive. >> Reply: You want to send a private reply, only to the sender (impossible >> when the list has "reply to list") >> And the non-standard buttons >> Reply to sender: Only makes sense in order to override lists with the >> broken "reply to list" header. >> Reply to list: You force people like me to get only one copy against my >> wish, and you are proud of it. > > The problem with that is not everyone uses complicated mailers. I am using > MUTT on a Linux system (this is a Linux list after) all, which is the same > mailer, with "improvements" that I have been using since 1991 when I got > my domain name and found out that UNIX mail would only put UUCP return > paths. > > I only have two choices, "reply to sender" and "reply to everyone" which > replies to everyone in the sender and CC headers. I think it is smart > enough not to reply twice to someone who is in both, but that's as far as > it goes. Actually mutt has had support for reply-to-list for quite some time (before just about any other mailer?) If you're "subscribed" to the list, then shift-l is reply-to-list. -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il || a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il || best ICQ# 16849754 || friend ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:06:55PM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Here is the situation as I see it: Reply to all: You respect each individual's preferences regarding how many copies they want to receive. Reply: You want to send a private reply, only to the sender (impossible when the list has "reply to list") And the non-standard buttons Reply to sender: Only makes sense in order to override lists with the broken "reply to list" header. Reply to list: You force people like me to get only one copy against my wish, and you are proud of it. The problem with that is not everyone uses complicated mailers. Which is why I'm advocating the use of the first two. Even you have those. I only have two choices, "reply to sender" which I called "reply" and "reply to everyone" Which I called "reply to all". Shachar ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:06:55PM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Here is the situation as I see it: Reply to all: You respect each individual's preferences regarding how many copies they want to receive. Reply: You want to send a private reply, only to the sender (impossible when the list has "reply to list") And the non-standard buttons Reply to sender: Only makes sense in order to override lists with the broken "reply to list" header. Reply to list: You force people like me to get only one copy against my wish, and you are proud of it. The problem with that is not everyone uses complicated mailers. I am using MUTT on a Linux system (this is a Linux list after) all, which is the same mailer, with "improvements" that I have been using since 1991 when I got my domain name and found out that UNIX mail would only put UUCP return paths. I only have two choices, "reply to sender" and "reply to everyone" which replies to everyone in the sender and CC headers. I think it is smart enough not to reply twice to someone who is in both, but that's as far as it goes. No, I have no intention of using a web mail interface, although I have access to a particularly good one, a graphic mailer, mail.app, outlook, outlook excess or anything else. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
Micha Feigin wrote: At least the behaviour with claws mail at the moment, reply to list correctly recognizes linux-il which is good. Previously I've sent private mails instead of list mails a lot of times because I'm used to using reply to list for all others and I don't remember to switch. We are digressing into discussion about ethics, but here goes. Personally, I think "reply to all" is the right thing to do in most situations. Replying to a narrower group, especially if done without thinking, is simply impolite. You email me and send a CC to someone else, this is, presumably, because you wanted this someone else to be a side to the discussion. If I hit "reply", I'm sending the message that says "I don't care who you thought should be included, I'm only replying to you". If I get a personal email with CCs, my default action is "reply to all" (unless this is "friendly spam" or other cases where I have reason to believe they were added to the discussion against their will). When I send an email to someone with a CC to someone else, I find it offensive when people reply only to me, and I try to hint to that effect by re-adding the CC when I reply (most people don't get the hint). To me, this is just common curtsy. And yet, email clients go to greater and greater length to make just such rude behavior easier and easier, and people take pride in the fact that they do it. Go figure. I could understand the use for "reply to list" when some people would get double the emails against their wishes. This, however, is no longer an issue with most modern mailing list managers. Here is the situation as I see it: Reply to all: You respect each individual's preferences regarding how many copies they want to receive. Reply: You want to send a private reply, only to the sender (impossible when the list has "reply to list") And the non-standard buttons Reply to sender: Only makes sense in order to override lists with the broken "reply to list" header. Reply to list: You force people like me to get only one copy against my wish, and you are proud of it. To me, it seems obvious that the polite thing to do, especially on a list that has no-dupes support, is to do "reply to all" by default. Since I think this is the right default for private communication as well for the reasons stated above, I don't see a problem. I am, however, open to the possibility that I'm wrong, if anyone wishes to enlighten me. At least with claws mail, in addition to the list, if you have a reply to address it also adds that to the cc field, don't know if others do the same. Yes, that's precisely what "reply to all" does. Put the original sender in the "to" and everyone else in the "cc". On the other hand, I've noticed that there are two from fields at the moment, one of the original poster and the other: >From linux-il-boun...@cs.huji.ac.il Wed Jan 28 18:04:20 2009 First, I didn't see that. Second, what you quote is not a header. An SMTP header has a colon (:) between header and data. What you are quoting is the SMTP MTAs log line, and is ignored by any sane mail client. Shachar ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:56:01 +0200 "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 03:00:04PM +0200, Herouth Maoz wrote: > > >I prefer it over using "reply to all" because I can then easily scan > >my outbox and detect which messages I sent to the list. > > What bugs me is people who send emails to 4 or 5 lists and then if I reply > to all, which normally gives a reply to the sender directly and one to the > list, I get 3 or 4 bounce messages because I don't subscribe to those > extra lists. > > Geoff. > At least the behaviour with claws mail at the moment, reply to list correctly recognizes linux-il which is good. Previously I've sent private mails instead of list mails a lot of times because I'm used to using reply to list for all others and I don't remember to switch. At least with claws mail, in addition to the list, if you have a reply to address it also adds that to the cc field, don't know if others do the same. On the other hand, I've noticed that there are two from fields at the moment, one of the original poster and the other: >From linux-il-boun...@cs.huji.ac.il Wed Jan 28 18:04:20 2009 Is this intentional? ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 07:39:38AM +1100, Amos Shapira wrote: > Somehow GMail seems to be able to do that - When I take part in, or > start, a mailing list thread which is filtered to another "folder" > (tagged with mailing list tag using a GMail filter) GMail will start > showing this thread *also* in my inbox. I think it has something to do > with > > It happens to me with CentOS mailman lists, for instance, but also > with many other mailman lists. The flip side to that is that when someone sends me a mail to my work account (which is sadly a gmail one) both privately and on-list, gmail keeps only a single copy. And I have to actively copy it to the mailing list folder. (I fetch the mail through the pop3 interface, as I don't want to be bound to the way gmail chooses to store my mail on its server) -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il || a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il || best ICQ# 16849754 || friend ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
2009/1/29 Shachar Shemesh : > Herouth Maoz wrote: >> >> I prefer it over using "reply to all" because I can then easily scan my >> outbox and detect which messages I sent to the list. > > But I prefer you didn't. > > Mails arriving from the list go into the linux-il folder. Emails sent > directly to me are left in my inbox. I read my inbox much more frequently > than I read this folder. If you only reply to the list, I won't get your > reply to my email nearly as fast as if you hit "reply to all", slowing the > entire discussion down. (First time doing "reply all" without culling duplicate recipients :) First - I agree with your reasoning. I get around to read my mailing list folders much less than my inbox. Somehow GMail seems to be able to do that - When I take part in, or start, a mailing list thread which is filtered to another "folder" (tagged with mailing list tag using a GMail filter) GMail will start showing this thread *also* in my inbox. I think it has something to do with It happens to me with CentOS mailman lists, for instance, but also with many other mailman lists. Maybe you can figure out how it does that and replicate it Anyway - thanks for brining this mailing list to current standards. --Amos ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
Herouth Maoz wrote: I prefer it over using "reply to all" because I can then easily scan my outbox and detect which messages I sent to the list. But I prefer you didn't. Mails arriving from the list go into the linux-il folder. Emails sent directly to me are left in my inbox. I read my inbox much more frequently than I read this folder. If you only reply to the list, I won't get your reply to my email nearly as fast as if you hit "reply to all", slowing the entire discussion down. There are people on this list with different mailing list paradigmas, and we are trying to work something out that works for everyone. Shachar ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 03:00:04PM +0200, Herouth Maoz wrote: I prefer it over using "reply to all" because I can then easily scan my outbox and detect which messages I sent to the list. What bugs me is people who send emails to 4 or 5 lists and then if I reply to all, which normally gives a reply to the sender directly and one to the list, I get 3 or 4 bounce messages because I don't subscribe to those extra lists. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
Quoting Shachar Shemesh : Linux-IL is a list with no added "reply-to list" header. You are kindly requested to hit "reply to all" when replying to postings arriving from the list. Don't worry about people getting two copies. When mailman notices that your email is in the "To" or "CC" list, it will refrain from sending you the mailing list's copy of the email (it will assume that you already received a copy), which means that you will NOT receive two copies of emails that belong to discussions you participate in. Now that the list supports the standard headers, there are, in fact, mail clients which support a separate "reply to list" button which sends to the list based on the appropriate header, which is how I am sending this reply. I prefer it over using "reply to all" because I can then easily scan my outbox and detect which messages I sent to the list. By the way, regarding the "[linux-il]" tag - is there a way to set up a poll about this, rather than conducting a lengthy argument? Herouth ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
Hi all, As Ely wrote before, the list is now running on Mailman. Everyone's profiles should have been moved. Most of the following are relevant for any Mailman managed list, but I know things have been heated about these subjects here in the past, so I'll repeat some of them. First, as you can see, the [Linux-il] subject has been removed. Ely and me agreed that keeping the status quo is the best course of action at this point in time. Unfortunately, Mailman does not allow this to be set per-recipient (and even if it did, things would still overflow when you reply, so this is probably WHY mailman does not allow it per-recipient). After proper discussion, if a consensus arises to bring it back, we will bring it back. Linux-IL is a list with no added "reply-to list" header. You are kindly requested to hit "reply to all" when replying to postings arriving from the list. Don't worry about people getting two copies. When mailman notices that your email is in the "To" or "CC" list, it will refrain from sending you the mailing list's copy of the email (it will assume that you already received a copy), which means that you will NOT receive two copies of emails that belong to discussions you participate in. Some people (myself included) like to receive two copies. This Mailman behavior is configurable on a per-user basis. Just log on to the user administration interface (link at the bottom of this email, as well as any email received from the list), and uncheck the "nodupes" option. At the moment, all users subscribing to the list, as well as all users already subscribed who did not perform this setting, have nodupes activated (i.e. - will not receive two copies when others hit "reply to all"). Hopefully, this will set the old "reply-to" argument to its final rest. At the moment, the list is configured to send a password reminder once a month. Again, this can be switched off on a per-user basis from the same place. I tried to cause mailman to send the headers that listserv used to send, to no avail. I'm afraid that anyone that relied on the list headers in order to filter the mail will have to update their filters. The Mailman headers are better in almost every respect, so this is more of a migration issue than anything else. Also, Mailman keeps its own archives around. You can get them at http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/pipermail/linux-il/. They, obviously, start from the moment of the switch. All of the usual archives should continue to work as before. That's about it. Enjoy the new system. Shachar ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
