Re: How to send a return receipt
Quoting Stephan Seitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What you want is an invasion of privacy of every reader. It is not of your concern if and when a user reads your mail. Such a feature should never be part of mutt. It is not of the sender's concern _only_ when the recipient says so. The recipient _could_ refuse to send a receipt. The recipient _could_ also want it otherwise, for business or legal or whatever reasons. The point here is, people and groups of people operate vastly differently, often in ways that we never think of. So why should an MUA be so morally judgmental? Besides if you are sending a mail to more than one recipient or an alias, you will get a notification from every recipient. And _maybe_ that's what they want. And again that's not something the MUA(or its developers) should be in a position to decide. What you want to do is bugging the MTA developpers to implement DSN (if not already available) not MUA developpers. Nobody is bugging anybody as far as I can see here. I won't stop using mutt just because it won't support mail receipts. In fact, I couldn't care less about mail receipts myself on a technical level. The reason I got involved in this debate is because I can't agree that a tool should decide whether a feature is socially appropriate or not for its users. That, and maybe I'm just in the mood for philosophical argument these days. Cheers. -- Jing Xue
Re: How to send a return receipt
Quoting Rado S [EMAIL PROTECTED]: =- Jing Xue wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 12:17:08 -0400 -= The point here is, people and groups of people operate vastly differently, often in ways that we never think of. So why should an MUA be so morally judgmental? If nobody does, where should moral come from? If somebody does, why is anyone more qualified than the other? If all are the same, why not the coder(s)? Because coders are supposed to code solutions into a tool, not to code their ideology into it. (well as far as software tools are concerned) I remember reading one of Linus Torvalds's posts to the kernel list about why the kernel should not actively refuse to load non-OSS modules. His point, and obviously I paraphrase, is that that would be imposing an ideology on people, and that would be bad, and actually quite an irony considering the ideology being imposed itself is all supposed to be about more freedom. Diversity is fine, but can work for bad ends, too, think of spammers and TOFU posters. You can't technically avoid it (and sometimes it's even functionally required/ wanted), but you don't have to make it easy for the crowd to satisfy few legitimate uses. In my book of good and bad, requesting a mail receipt is nowhere remotely close to spamming/trashing. 8-) Cheers. -- Jing Xue
Re: How to send a return receipt
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 10:42:06PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
=- Jing Xue wrote on Wed 17.Oct'07 at 16:07:28 -0400 -=
Because coders are supposed to code solutions into a tool, not to
code their ideology into it. (well as far as software tools are
concerned)
Why is that so?
It's not like you're forced such a ideology-loaded tool or are
entitled to use the work of somebody else against his will, or are
you? ;)
Don't like it as it is? Do it yourself.
//sigh, why is it that at the end of every one of these debates, there
is always this boiler plate answer that awaits?
I thought OSS was about the freedom of choice, and about letting (not
forcing) more and more people realize that they do have more choices.
I never thought of OSS as a path to the elitism of I can do it myself,
and you can't, even despite that the elitism is really just an
illusion, because people can't do it maybe out of many reasons other
than their skill sets.
Do you really rewrite every piece of software you find not up to your
expectations, yet you cannot convince the developer to change it because
the developer does not agree with you philosophically?
This is _not_ about the attitude of the user's, but that of the
developer's.
His point, and obviously I paraphrase, is that that would be
imposing an ideology on people, and that would be bad, {...}
There are obviously drawbacks for either imposing or refraining from
it, again a matter of preference of potentially resulting consequences.
How can you call it a matter of preference, when the very choice of this
preference itself may conflict with the fundamental value behind the
ideology?
In my book of good and bad, requesting a mail receipt is nowhere
remotely close to spamming/trashing. 8-)
Neither is it in mine, was just giving an example why it can be
reasonable/ necessary to think more about consequences of what you
release on the world ahead of time.
Yes, it _can_ be reasonable. It is reasonable when the consequences are
actually bad - as in your example. It _can_ also be unreasonable and in
turn self-righteously imposing when the consequences are not even
remotely close to being bad.
Cheers.
--
Jing Xue
Re: How to send a return receipt
Quoting Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The concept of mail receipts is poorly designed; there is no way to implement a reliable receipt notification system with SMTP mail. *Many* of the better mail packages therefore do not implement support for it -- why have a feature if you *know* it can never work properly? I think it's an overstatement to say that it can never work properly. It's actually it _might not_ work properly. It still serves its purpose when it does work - see below. It's also seen as an invasion of privacy. It certainly creates some annoyance on the recipient end. But I don't see how it is an invasion of privacy as long as the MUA has my consent before sending a receipt. Mail receipts are essentially one of those features that commercial MUA vendors include as a marketing checkbox feature, but which serve little or no useful purpose in the real world. Well, in the corporate* world where people communicate over Lotus Notes or Outlook, they tend to use mail receipts a lot. And _because_ they all communicate over the same MUA that supports the feature, it actually does work and become useful. Now _I_ don't use these mail receipts, nor do _I_ like getting them, because of the annoyance factor. But then I respect it when others request one - at least before they start abusing it. My 2 cents. -- Jing Xue *: that's real enough for me. YMMV.
Re: Add alias during session
On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 11:41:15PM -0800, William Yardley wrote: On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 11:06:52PM +0100, Christian Ebert wrote: * Jing Xue on Sunday, February 04, 2007 at 12:16:11 -0500: I know 'a' adds an alias for the current sender, but is there any other more generic way to add alias _and_ make it effective immediately? :source aliasfile after adding the alias. Maybe I'm on crack, but I already don't have to source the alias file for a new alias to work - after adding it with a, it Just Works. Those added with a don't have to be sourced. But a only adds the sender's address. The only way to add an arbitrary alias seems to be to edit the alias file directly - and then to make it effective, as Christian pointed out (would have been obvious had I RTFM ;-)), the alias file would have to be sourced. -- Jing Xue
Re: Add alias during session
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 11:36:16AM +0100, Stefano Sabatini wrote: On date Sunday 2007-02-04 12:16:11 -0500, Jing Xue muttered: I know 'a' adds an alias for the current sender, but is there any other more generic way to add alias _and_ make it effective immediately? I can start an editor to edit my .mutt/alias but I can't see the changes until restarting mutt. create-alias, usually bound to a, makes the new alias immediately effective, and immediately writes the alias in the $alias_file. Maybe you have to refresh the buffer you're seeing with your editor to see the change. After three people pointed out the obvious, I went back and read my OP and realized it was indeed confusing. What I meant was to look for some way to add _any arbitrary_ alias and make it effective immediately. -- Jing Xue
Add alias during session
I know 'a' adds an alias for the current sender, but is there any other more generic way to add alias _and_ make it effective immediately? I can start an editor to edit my .mutt/alias but I can't see the changes until restarting mutt. Thanks. -- Jing Xue
