Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Bruce Momjian wrote: I think this is the crux of the problem --- if I subscribed to multiple email lists, and some have rely going to the list and some have reply going to the author, I would have to think about the right reply option every time I send email. That's not really the case. I always use reply to all in mutt (the g key) and it always work; in all the lists I subscribe (including those which set reply-to) and in personal email too. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Am 2008-10-23 15:52:30, schrieb ries van Twisk: anyways.. I don't care anymore... I will do a reply all. I do normaly: killall ;-) Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Greg Smith wrote: On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Bill Moran wrote: You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal thing. It's personal because you are the only one complaining about it. Despite the large number of people on this list, I don't see anyone jumping in to defend you. Mikkel is right, every other well-organized mailing list I've ever been on handles things the sensible way he suggests, but everybody on his side who's been on lists here for a while already knows this issue is a dead horse. Since I use the most advanced e-mail client on the market I just work around that the settings here are weird, it does annoy me a bit anytime I stop to think about it though. I think this is the crux of the problem --- if I subscribed to multiple email lists, and some have rely going to the list and some have reply going to the author, I would have to think about the right reply option every time I send email. Fortunately, every email list I subscribe to and manage behaves like the Postgres lists. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Bruce Momjian wrote: Mikkel is right, every other well-organized mailing list I've ever been on handles things the sensible way he suggests, but everybody on his side who's been on lists here for a while already knows this issue is a dead horse. Since I use the most advanced e-mail client on the market I just work around that the settings here are weird, it does annoy me a bit anytime I stop to think about it though. I think this is the crux of the problem --- if I subscribed to multiple email lists, and some have rely going to the list and some have reply going to the author, I would have to think about the right reply option every time I send email. Fortunately, every email list I subscribe to and manage behaves like the Postgres lists. I find it difficult to believe that every list you subscribe to behaves as the Postgres list does. Not that I'm doubting you, just that it's difficult given that the PG list is the ONLY list I've ever been on to use Reply as just replying to the author. Every other list I've ever seen has reply as the list address and requires Reply All to reply to the original poster. Thus, I would fall into the category of people who have to think hard in order to do the correct thing when posting to this list. I've checked and I can't even find an option to make Thunderbird (the client I use in windows) reply to the list properly with the reply button (it just cannot be set that way.) You must use Reply All. You might say that that makes Thunderbird crippled but I see it more as a sign that nobody outside of a few fussy RFC worshipping types would ever want the behavior of the Postgre list. Yes, I'll have to live with the current behavior. Yes, it's an RFC standard. But, even after having heard the arguments I'm not convinced that this list's behavior is desirable. YMMV. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Oct 23, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Collin Kidder wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Mikkel is right, every other well-organized mailing list I've ever been on handles things the sensible way he suggests, but everybody on his side who's been on lists here for a while already knows this issue is a dead horse. Since I use the most advanced e-mail client on the market I just work around that the settings here are weird, it does annoy me a bit anytime I stop to think about it though. I think this is the crux of the problem --- if I subscribed to multiple email lists, and some have rely going to the list and some have reply going to the author, I would have to think about the right reply option every time I send email. Fortunately, every email list I subscribe to and manage behaves like the Postgres lists. I find it difficult to believe that every list you subscribe to behaves as the Postgres list does. Not that I'm doubting you, just that it's difficult given that the PG list is the ONLY list I've ever been on to use Reply as just replying to the author. Every other list I've ever seen has reply as the list address and requires Reply All to reply to the original poster. Thus, I would fall into the category of people who have to think hard in order to do the correct thing when posting to this list. I have the same experience, only PG list seems to behave different. In my humble opinion I feel that I am subscribed to the list (It also says on the bottom Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org )), so a reply (not reply all --- remove original author) should go back to the list where I am subscribed at, in in my opinion the source is the list aswell (that's why I am getting it in the first place). I've checked and I can't even find an option to make Thunderbird (the client I use in windows) reply to the list properly with the reply button (it just cannot be set that way.) You must use Reply All. You might say that that makes Thunderbird crippled but I see it more as a sign that nobody outside of a few fussy RFC worshipping types would ever want the behavior of the Postgre list. Yes, I'll have to live with the current behavior. Yes, it's an RFC standard. But, even after having heard the arguments I'm not convinced that this list's behavior is desirable. YMMV. mail.App is crippled aswell.. I think I will install Mutt again for convenience --- just kidding... Ries -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Thursday 23 October 2008, Collin Kidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You must use Reply All. You might say that that makes Thunderbird crippled but I see it more as a sign that nobody outside of a few fussy RFC worshipping types would ever want the behavior of the Postgre list. Yes, I'll have to live with the current behavior. Yes, it's an RFC standard. But, even after having heard the arguments I'm not convinced that this list's behavior is desirable. YMMV. If it bugs you that much, just fix it for yourself. :0 fr * ^(To:|Cc:)[EMAIL PROTECTED] | /usr/bin/formail -I Reply-To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org .. and eliminate any dupes: :0 Whc: /home/$USER/.msgid.lock |/usr/bin/formail -D 1024 /home/$USER/.msgid.cache If your MUA doesn't work right, procmail is your friend. -- Alan -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
El Jueves 23 Octubre 2008 Collin Kidder escribió: horse. Since I use the most advanced e-mail client on the market I just work around that the settings here are weird, it does annoy me a bit anytime I stop to think about it though. What's such most advanced mail reader?? No one, ive seen, seems to be perfect nor thunderbird. By the way kmail has 4 options (reply, reply to all, reply to author, reply to list) in addition to be able to use list headers included in the message. in fact many other mail-list dont have such extended features, as not all of the previous 4 options works as expected. For me this makes postgres lists the most complete about the RFC. So is about, thunderbird to move forward one step, not to cripple standars back. In fact this remembers me the M$ way of doing things.. Regards, Angel -- Clist UAH -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On 23/10/2008 19:09, Angel Alvarez wrote: No one, ive seen, seems to be perfect nor thunderbird. By the way kmail has 4 options (reply, reply to all, reply to author, reply to list) in addition to be able to use list headers included in the message. Here's a reply to list add-on for ThunderBird - it's marked experimental, but may be worth a try: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/4455 Ray. -- Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Galway Cathedral Recitals: http://www.galwaycathedral.org/recitals -- -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Angel Alvarez wrote: What's such most advanced mail reader?? No one, ive seen, seems to be perfect nor thunderbird. By the way kmail has 4 options (reply, reply to all, reply to author, reply to list) in addition to be able to use list headers included in the message. in fact many other mail-list dont have such extended features, as not all of the previous 4 options works as expected. For me this makes postgres lists the most complete about the RFC. So is about, thunderbird to move forward one step, not to cripple standars back. In fact this remembers me the M$ way of doing things.. Regards, Angel One could argue that a standard which is respected by nobody but a few people from this list is NOT a standard but rather a botched attempt at creating a standard which no one wanted. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Well but the RFC's were in fact prior to thunderbird So for he most of its life, when few people was using it, Thiunderbird was a sad example of your botched attempt of creating a standar of NOT FOLLOWING THE RFC's... Well, also M$ thought they invented internet so its a common mistake. May be you can push Thunderbird guys a bit to include a little more funcionailty other than complaining others that try to follow what to seemed to be the right way. Are we going to try be standars compliant or we keep trying to reinvent the wheel? Poor RFC people, what a waste of time... Regards, Angel El Jueves 23 Octubre 2008 Collin Kidder escribió: Angel Alvarez wrote: What's such most advanced mail reader?? No one, ive seen, seems to be perfect nor thunderbird. By the way kmail has 4 options (reply, reply to all, reply to author, reply to list) in addition to be able to use list headers included in the message. in fact many other mail-list dont have such extended features, as not all of the previous 4 options works as expected. For me this makes postgres lists the most complete about the RFC. So is about, thunderbird to move forward one step, not to cripple standars back. In fact this remembers me the M$ way of doing things.. Regards, Angel One could argue that a standard which is respected by nobody but a few people from this list is NOT a standard but rather a botched attempt at creating a standard which no one wanted. -- Ningún personajillo ha sido vilipendiado si no es necesario. El 'buen rollo' está en nuestras manos. Clist UAH a.k.a Angel -[www.uah.es]--- BIG BANG: átomo primigenio que, debido a una incorrecta manipulación por parte de Dios, explotó y provocó una tremenda algarada en el vacío, razón por la que, aún hoy, las empresas aseguradoras no quieren ni oír hablar de Dios. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Angel Alvarez wrote: Well but the RFC's were in fact prior to thunderbird So for he most of its life, when few people was using it, Thiunderbird was a sad example of your botched attempt of creating a standar of NOT FOLLOWING THE RFC's... But, as I mentioned, nobody cares about this particular standard. In my opinion a standard which is totally ignored by almost everyone is effectively dead and worthless. Well, also M$ thought they invented internet so its a common mistake. I thought that was Al Gore that invented the internet. ;-) May be you can push Thunderbird guys a bit to include a little more funcionailty other than complaining others that try to follow what to seemed to be the right way. Are we going to try be standars compliant or we keep trying to reinvent the wheel? Poor RFC people, what a waste of time... Standards are all well and good but anything should be evaluated for it's utility. If a standard is undesirable then it's undesirable. Most mailing lists do not exhibit the same behavior as this list not because they are all ignorant of the standard but because they feel that following the standard is not desirable. I'm perfectly fine to follow the convention of this list. Some lists like top posting. Not this one. That's ok, I'll bottom or interleaved post. All I'm saying is that one cannot look to standards as gospel and disengage their brains. It's perfectly acceptable to say 'this standard sucks!' And so, I along with a couple of other people from this list, say 'this standard sucks.' -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On standards weenies (was: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To)
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 01:25:47PM -0400, Collin Kidder wrote: that that makes Thunderbird crippled but I see it more as a sign that nobody outside of a few fussy RFC worshipping types would ever want the behavior of the Postgre list. Indeed. And PostgreSQL not interpreting '' as NULL, or '2008-02-31' as a date, or other such silly strictness is just the imposition on you of the personal views of a few fussy ANSI worshipping types. Nobody would ever want such behaviour. Of course, you could consider that the behaviour as defined in the standards, which are there to ensure good interoperability, were written over many years by painstaking standards weenie types who spent a great amount of time thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of these various options.[1] Or perhaps you think that you're the only person to whom it ever occurred that some different behaviour might be desirable? Sorry, but pointing and laughing at people with whom you disagree doesn't constitute an argument. Relying on an appeal to popularity is, in fact, a well-known fallacy (sometimes known as _ad populum_). If you want to argue that the standard is wrong, you need something better than this. Alternatively, please go stand in the corner with the people who think that MySQL version 3.x is the pinnacle of correct database behaviour. A [1] To pick an example I can think of off the top of my head, you would not believe just how much wrangling has gone on this year alone over whether the ß character (LATIN SMALL LETTER SHARP S) should or should not be allowed into internationalized domain names. -- Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Oct 23, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Collin Kidder wrote: Angel Alvarez wrote: Well but the RFC's were in fact prior to thunderbird So for he most of its life, when few people was using it, Thiunderbird was a sad example of your botched attempt of creating a standar of NOT FOLLOWING THE RFC's... But, as I mentioned, nobody cares about this particular standard. In my opinion a standard which is totally ignored by almost everyone is effectively dead and worthless. If you don't like it (and this applies to everyone else arguing about it, on either side) please do one of these three things: 1. Fix it locally at your end, as is trivial to do with procmail, amongst other approaches, and quit whining about it. or 2. Quit whining about it. or 3. Find somewhere else to whine about it and quit whining about it here. Cheers, Steve -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Angel Alvarez wrote: horse. Since I use the most advanced e-mail client on the market I just work around that the settings here are weird What's such most advanced mail reader?? That quoted bit was actually from me, I was hoping to get a laugh out of anyone who actually looked at the header of my messages to see what I use. Or perhaps start a flamewar with those deviant mutt users; that would be about as productive as the continued existence of this thread. -- * Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Greg Smith escribió: On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Angel Alvarez wrote: horse. Since I use the most advanced e-mail client on the market I just work around that the settings here are weird What's such most advanced mail reader?? That quoted bit was actually from me, I was hoping to get a laugh out of anyone who actually looked at the header of my messages to see what I use. You did get a laugh from me, one of those deviant mutt users ;-) -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Oct 23, 2008, at 3:44 PM, Greg Smith wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Angel Alvarez wrote: horse. Since I use the most advanced e-mail client on the market I just work around that the settings here are weird What's such most advanced mail reader?? That quoted bit was actually from me, I was hoping to get a laugh out of anyone who actually looked at the header of my messages to see what I use. Or perhaps start a flamewar with those deviant mutt users; that would be about as productive as the continued existence of this thread. Just checked... it says : Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does that mean a reply should go back to the sender :D Just kidding anyways.. I don't care anymore... I will do a reply all. regards, Ries van Twisk - A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
2008/10/23 Steve Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If you don't like it (and this applies to everyone else arguing about it, on either side) please do one of these three things: 1. Fix it locally at your end, as is trivial to do with procmail, amongst other approaches, and quit whining about it. or 2. Quit whining about it. or 3. Find somewhere else to whine about it and quit whining about it here. Cheers, Steve On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Bill Moran wrote: You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal thing. It's personal because you are the only one complaining about it. Despite the large number of people on this list, I don't see anyone jumping in to defend you. Personally I am of the view that, as I am on this list principally to get support from it, and I am quite prepared to submit to the vagaries and oddities of the list behaviour in pursuit of the answers I might seek. As such, I am quite prepared to 1) Fix it my end, 2) Quit whining about it and 3) Find something else to whine about. However, the point is made by Bill that 'only one person' might feel that the reply-to configuration could be improved, and I feel compelled to say that, while I might not be driven to complain about the list behaviour myself, I do feel that the OP does have a point. And that's all that I'm going to say on the matter. - Dave Coventry -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Hulou hjuvat folkenbergers und goody good peoples ute po daer in allas e oceanos / terranos, I chose to 'Reply to Mailing-List' in my preferred mail app. (Kmail on Ubuntu 8.10) I really don't know why ... but shore hope, mean sure, as in truly, this is hopefully not an annoying postage broadcastung. wink, lol, capatcha, tsajajaja, manolito! Furthermore, I am pop to(a)sting. Phonetically reversed, top posting. Puff the embers every once and a while. To have [a] flame[s] --help?. Keep on keepin' on. SamiTjahkasTjohkasny, äeeäee kenen poro, Vincentin Genen? Simmons? Gruppa? Gene? Ootsiäee ihan varma? Oks sähöstarttii, ahe! Läks, where's mi head (laughing it off)? Focus. Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over. -- great late FZ -- Wha'ever dad means, I think we need some standards. 1. I wish 2. I had a button that kept me from sending silly messages. 3. Whoops, still not do. Rock, Aarni Received: from mx2.hub.org ([200.46.204.254]:26819 EHLO mx2.hub.org) by northstar.iwn.fi with ESMTP id S10843AbYJWU4D (ORCPT rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED]); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:56:03 +0300 Received: from postgresql.org (unknown [200.46.204.86]) by mx2.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DEDA1E8229B; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:55:49 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B161764FD71 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:54:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 73727-01-4 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:54:44 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.231]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301A164FD93 for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:54:42 -0300 (ADT) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so482917rvf.43 for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:54:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=7Asrle/2g7OnvL+HaGS+X0l8PHMMoueNpeFTF88Jfzs=; b=cyRbNr15f00Tbu7laTnSM9nSmJhkwnqBa04eGgWN7AV9nfxSEqrCM0EhMiy0ZFPec1 PzBioeul06+v2CNCD7LDc3KiTHky2DliiA7gYedUtJcW6UJtjbeqo1CxBqEA/sM47FHO fHmhUNIJ9nh5tnfI4SejEiDdht1mgmGsdbFDM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=UIdt6g6DfV7h1z9tYcTxlUF90IFoeN6iAAH6GHrzWsp5VpluWUEIVgsZloJkDcIFeh ffuxRD9Ucq2bPWcnk2flEeLbyCQwOvDsiU5WR24JGYF5LAPugouNEKW5xeLAOnN5JA8/ V7/aUnJMkdkdCNxpLyGBxCUsJcbVKgGDdyaN0= Received: by 10.141.162.16 with SMTP id p16mr661554rvo.243.1224795281837; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.77.14 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:54:41 +0200 From: Dave Coventry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Steve Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To Cc: pgsql-general General pgsql-general@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-general List-Archive: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general List-Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-ID: pgsql-general.postgresql.org List-Owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Post: mailto:pgsql-general@postgresql.org List-Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED] Original-Recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status: R X-Status: N X-KMail-EncryptionState: X-KMail-SignatureState: X-KMail-MDN-Sent: On Thursday 23 October 2008 23:54:41 Dave Coventry wrote: 2008/10/23 Steve Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If you don't like it (and this applies to everyone else arguing about it, on either side) please do one of these three things: 1. Fix it locally at your end, as is trivial to do with procmail
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:42 AM, ries van Twisk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 23, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Collin Kidder wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Mikkel is right, every other well-organized mailing list I've ever been on handles things the sensible way he suggests, but everybody on his side who's been on lists here for a while already knows this issue is a dead horse. Since I use the most advanced e-mail client on the market I just work around that the settings here are weird, it does annoy me a bit anytime I stop to think about it though. I think this is the crux of the problem --- if I subscribed to multiple email lists, and some have rely going to the list and some have reply going to the author, I would have to think about the right reply option every time I send email. Fortunately, every email list I subscribe to and manage behaves like the Postgres lists. I find it difficult to believe that every list you subscribe to behaves as the Postgres list does. Not that I'm doubting you, just that it's difficult given that the PG list is the ONLY list I've ever been on to use Reply as just replying to the author. Every other list I've ever seen has reply as the list address and requires Reply All to reply to the original poster. Thus, I would fall into the category of people who have to think hard in order to do the correct thing when posting to this list. I have the same experience, only PG list seems to behave different. In my humble opinion I feel that I am subscribed to the list (It also says on the bottom Sent via pgsql-general mailing list ( pgsql-general@postgresql.org)), so a reply (not reply all --- remove original author) should go back to the list where I am subscribed at, in in my opinion the source is the list aswell (that's why I am getting it in the first place). I know of at least one other list that is similar: MySQL. And I brought it up a year ago with no eventual change: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/209593 After a while you just get used to hitting reply all when you mean to reply all. I now prefer (though not strongly) this setting. -- Rob Wultsch
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Raymond O'Donnell wrote: On 23/10/2008 19:09, Angel Alvarez wrote: No one, ive seen, seems to be perfect nor thunderbird. By the way kmail has 4 options (reply, reply to all, reply to author, reply to list) in addition to be able to use list headers included in the message. Here's a reply to list add-on for ThunderBird - it's marked experimental, but may be worth a try: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/4455 Works great! Thanks, Ray - no more complaints from me ;). Anyone using Thunderbird to read this list would benefit from this add-on. -- Guy Rouillier -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Friday 17 October 2008 22:01:33 Guy Rouillier wrote: When I use Reply All in Thunderbird, it adds a To: to each of the individuals in the discussion, and a CC: to the list. Since I personally don't like receiving multiple copies of emails from this list, I delete all of the To: addressees and change the list from CC: to To:. Would be nice if everyone did the same. Set the eliminatecc option in your majordomo configuration to avoid getting duplicate mail. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
* Guy Rouillier [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081001 00:00]: Bill Moran wrote: You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal thing. It's personal because you are the only one complaining about it. Despite the large number of people on this list, I don't see anyone jumping in to defend you. I'm another in the crowd that had this same discussion when I joined years ago. I had the same point of view as Mikkel, but I've adapted to the community way of doing things. When I use Reply All in Thunderbird, it adds a To: to each of the individuals in the discussion, and a CC: to the list. Since I personally don't like receiving multiple copies of emails from this list, I delete all of the To: addressees and change the list from CC: to To:. Would be nice if everyone did the same. Since you asked, I did. But now, if the list munged my reply-to, how would you get back to me? Clicking on the author, as the 2nd link Greg posted suggested *won't* work. In fact, my MUA explicitly told you how to get back to me (by setting a reply-to), but if the MLM munged that... /me is glad that PostgreSQL doesn't just insert NULL when I give it an empty string, just because NULL is pretty much the same thing ;-) -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, [EMAIL PROTECTED] command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Aidan Van Dyk wrote: But now, if the list munged my reply-to, how would you get back to me? I wouldn't ;). The whole point of a mailing list is to have discussions with the list. If I wanted to correspond with you directly, I wouldn't use the list for that. -- Guy Rouillier -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: But now, if the list munged my reply-to, how would you get back to me? Why'd you have to interrupt a perfectly good, unwinnable idealogical argument with a technical question? While there is only one reply-to allowed for a message, you can put multiple addresses in there. It is not necessarily the case that a list that munges the header must be lossy (although majordomo isn't a good example here[1]). As most incoming list messages around only have a from, not a reply-to, you can usefully add reply-to for regular messages to redirect them to the list (the goal people who are pro list-based reply to want) and append the list address to any existing reply-to for the occasional odd message that specifies it directly, like yours I'm replying to. As for an actual implementation of good behavior here, see the end of http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html for one example of list software that supports adding a reply-to without stripping any already there off in the process. From a RFC 5322 standards-based perspective, I see the crux of the argument like this: the reply-to is supposed to be set to the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent. The RFC says the author is the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible for the writing of the message. I don't think it's completely unreasonable to say the system running the mailing list originating the actual message into my account could be considered a co-author of it by that definition. It's a system with a mailbox that's responsible for me receiving the message, and the fact that it does touch some headers says it's writing part of the message (if you consider the header part of the message, which I do). I'm OK that such interpretation is not considered correct, but it does bug me a bit that most of the arguments I see against it are either strawman or appeal to authority based rather than focusing on the practical. You'd be better focusing on real-world issues like oh, if reply-to were set to the list, every idiot subscribed with an auto-reply that doesn't respect the bulk precedence would hit the whole list, thereby introducing the potential for an endless mail-loop; now that is much easier to swallow as a problem for a large list than RFC trivia. [1] majordomo doesn't handle this very well out of the box as far as I know. I believe its only behavior is still to only replace the reply-to with the list address. You can insert something in between where messages are approved as list-worthy (attachments aren't too big, etc.) and when resend is called to implement the same feature: add or extend the reply-to with the list address while not losing any explicit reply-to in the original. But I think you still have to hack it in there yourself, as I did once long ago. -- * Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Hi Martinn, here the great Dictator Michelle! Am 2008-10-17 10:24:44, schrieb Martin Gainty: free unfettered and open discussion without interference from ANY entity is a requirement of a democracy the REAL question is ..is this a democracy??? Shut-Up or I will install you Micr0$of SQL Server... LOL ;-) Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Am 2008-10-17 08:12:00, schrieb Scott Marlowe: I prefer the list the way it is. And so do a very large, very silent majority of users. pip I agree with you. I am on Mailinglist since I use the Internet (1995) and there are not very much mailinglists which manipulate the Reply-To: Header... So, I prefer, HOW this list is. Of course, I reply with l or Reply-To-List. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Am 2008-10-17 08:42:46, schrieb Andrew Sullivan: My suggestion would be to use a mail user agent that knows how to read the list headers, which were standardized many years ago. Then you reply to list. Mutt has done this for at least a few years now. I don't know about other MUAs. N.C. ;-) Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
since you are not an advocate of democracy I bid you adieu Martin __ Disclaimer and confidentiality note Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relates to the official business of Sender. This transmission is of a confidential nature and Sender does not endorse distribution to any party other than intended recipient. Sender does not necessarily endorse content contained within this transmission. Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 03:50:07 +0200 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To Hi Martinn, here the great Dictator Michelle! Am 2008-10-17 10:24:44, schrieb Martin Gainty: free unfettered and open discussion without interference from ANY entity is a requirement of a democracy the REAL question is ..is this a democracy??? Shut-Up or I will install you Micr0$of SQL Server... LOL ;-) Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) _ Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008
[GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On 17/10/2008, at 12.24, Tomasz Ostrowski wrote: On 2008-10-17 12:13, Mikkel Høgh wrote: You're supposed to use Reply to all if you want to reply to the list. Well, I think the most common use case for a mailing list is to reply back to the list, isn't that the whole point? It is a point of having Reply to all button. With reply-to is it hard to reply to one person, easy to reply to the list. Without it it is both easy. But again, how often do you want to give a personal reply only? That is a valid use-case, but I'd say amongst the hundreds of mailing-list replies I've written over the years, only two or three were not sent back to the mailing list. Personally I find it annoying that I get two copies of each reply to one of my posts, one that is filtered into the mailinglist folder because it has the correct X-Mailing-List header and the other just sits there in my inbox, wasting both bandwidth and disk space in the process. So set reply-to in messages you send by yourself - it will be honored. Yay, even more manual labour instead of having the computers doing the work for us. What's your next suggestion, go back to pen and paper? Besides, the if the Reply-To thing is so dangerous, why do most other mailing lists do it? for i in Windows MySQL IE Sweets Alcohol etc.; do echo If using $i is so dangerous, why do most do it? done Well, my point is that Reply-To: is only dangerous if you're not careful. Not so with the other examples you mention :) If you're writing something important, private and/or confidential, don't you always check before you send? You'd better, because a small typo when you selected the recipient might mean that you're sending love-letters to your boss or something like that :) smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
In response to Mikkel Høgh [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 17/10/2008, at 12.24, Tomasz Ostrowski wrote: On 2008-10-17 12:13, Mikkel Høgh wrote: You're supposed to use Reply to all if you want to reply to the list. Well, I think the most common use case for a mailing list is to reply back to the list, isn't that the whole point? It is a point of having Reply to all button. With reply-to is it hard to reply to one person, easy to reply to the list. Without it it is both easy. But again, how often do you want to give a personal reply only? That is a valid use-case, but I'd say amongst the hundreds of mailing-list replies I've written over the years, only two or three were not sent back to the mailing list. You're forgetting the cost of a mistake in that case. As it stands, if you hit reply when you meant reply-to, oops, resend. If it's changed and you hit reply when you want to send a private message to the poster, you just broadcast your private message to the world. Yay, even more manual labour instead of having the computers doing the work for us. What's your next suggestion, go back to pen and paper? Don't be an asshole. There's no need for that kind of cynicism. Well, my point is that Reply-To: is only dangerous if you're not careful. Not so with the other examples you mention :) But as it is now, it's not dangerous at all. If you're writing something important, private and/or confidential, don't you always check before you send? You'd better, because a small typo when you selected the recipient might mean that you're sending love-letters to your boss or something like that :) I'd rather know that the computer had my back in the case of an error, instead of it helping me mindlessly even when I'm doing the wrong thing. To me, that's also the difference between MySQL and PostgreSQL. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 412-422-3463x4023 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On 17/10/2008, at 13.20, Bill Moran wrote: In response to Mikkel Høgh [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 17/10/2008, at 12.24, Tomasz Ostrowski wrote: But again, how often do you want to give a personal reply only? That is a valid use-case, but I'd say amongst the hundreds of mailing-list replies I've written over the years, only two or three were not sent back to the mailing list. You're forgetting the cost of a mistake in that case. As it stands, if you hit reply when you meant reply-to, oops, resend. If it's changed and you hit reply when you want to send a private message to the poster, you just broadcast your private message to the world. And again, how often does this happen? How often do people write really sensitive e-mails based on messages on pgsql-general. Because if we wanted to be really safe, we should not even send the mailing-list address along, so even if someone used the reply-all button, he could not accidentally post his private e-mail on the web. In true McDonalds-style, we could change the mailing-list-address to be [EMAIL PROTECTED] How far are you willing to go to protect people against themselves? Yay, even more manual labour instead of having the computers doing the work for us. What's your next suggestion, go back to pen and paper? Don't be an asshole. There's no need for that kind of cynicism. In my opinion, asking for sane defaults is neither cynicism or being an asshole. I may have put it on an edge, but having to manually add a Reply-To header to each message I send to pgsql-general is not my idea of fun. Well, my point is that Reply-To: is only dangerous if you're not careful. Not so with the other examples you mention :) But as it is now, it's not dangerous at all. No, just annoying and a waste of time, energy, bandwidth and ultimately, money. If you're writing something important, private and/or confidential, don't you always check before you send? You'd better, because a small typo when you selected the recipient might mean that you're sending love-letters to your boss or something like that :) I'd rather know that the computer had my back in the case of an error, instead of it helping me mindlessly even when I'm doing the wrong thing. To me, that's also the difference between MySQL and PostgreSQL. Well, in the above case, the computer doesn't have your back. If you told it to send the e-mail to Marty Boss instead of Maggie Blond, that's exactly what it'll do. Currently, when I tell my computer to reply to a message on the pgsql mailing list, it'll do something else, because who ever set it up decided to cater to the 0.1% edge-case instead of just having the default action be what it should be 99.5% of the time. You may not care about usability or user experience, but remember that what seems to be correct from a technical perpective is not always the right thing to do. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
In response to Mikkel Høgh [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 17/10/2008, at 13.20, Bill Moran wrote: In response to Mikkel Høgh [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 17/10/2008, at 12.24, Tomasz Ostrowski wrote: But again, how often do you want to give a personal reply only? That is a valid use-case, but I'd say amongst the hundreds of mailing-list replies I've written over the years, only two or three were not sent back to the mailing list. You're forgetting the cost of a mistake in that case. As it stands, if you hit reply when you meant reply-to, oops, resend. If it's changed and you hit reply when you want to send a private message to the poster, you just broadcast your private message to the world. And again, how often does this happen? How often do people write really sensitive e-mails based on messages on pgsql-general. It happens very infrequently. You're ignoring me and constantly trying to refocus away from my real argument. The frequency is not the justification, it's the severity that justifies it. If we save one overworked DBA per year from endangering their job online, I say it's worth it. How far are you willing to go to protect people against themselves? Personally, I'm willing to go so far as to expect the person to think about whether to hit reply or reply-to before sending the mail. I don't see that as unreasonable. but having to manually add a Reply-To header to each message I send to pgsql-general is not my idea of fun. I was not aware that Apple Mail was such a primitive email client. You should consider switching to something that has a reply-to button. I'm very disappointed in Apple. You may not care about usability or user experience, but remember that what seems to be correct from a technical perpective is not always the right thing to do. As I said, consider getting a real email client if this is wasting so much of your time. It doesn't cause me any undue effort. Or, you could just be lonely. I think you've spent enough man hours complaining about this to manually work around the problem for several years, which blows your this wastes too much of my valuable time argument out of the water. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 412-422-3463x4023 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mikkel_H=F8gh?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yay, even more manual labour instead of having the computers doing the work for us. What's your next suggestion, go back to pen and paper? Please stop wasting everyone's time with this. The list policy has been debated adequately in the past. You are not going to change it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Oct 17, 2008, at 8:01 , Bill Moran wrote: In response to Mikkel Høgh [EMAIL PROTECTED]: but having to manually add a Reply-To header to each message I send to pgsql-general is not my idea of fun. I was not aware that Apple Mail was such a primitive email client. You should consider switching to something that has a reply-to button. I'm very disappointed in Apple. It's not. It has Reply and Reply All buttons for the clicky-clicky folk, and keyboard shortcuts for each as well. Michael Glaesemann grzm seespotcode net -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On 17/10/2008, at 14.01, Bill Moran wrote: In response to Mikkel Høgh [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 17/10/2008, at 13.20, Bill Moran wrote: In response to Mikkel Høgh [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 17/10/2008, at 12.24, Tomasz Ostrowski wrote: But again, how often do you want to give a personal reply only? That is a valid use-case, but I'd say amongst the hundreds of mailing- list replies I've written over the years, only two or three were not sent back to the mailing list. You're forgetting the cost of a mistake in that case. As it stands, if you hit reply when you meant reply-to, oops, resend. If it's changed and you hit reply when you want to send a private message to the poster, you just broadcast your private message to the world. And again, how often does this happen? How often do people write really sensitive e-mails based on messages on pgsql-general. It happens very infrequently. You're ignoring me and constantly trying to refocus away from my real argument. The frequency is not the justification, it's the severity that justifies it. If we save one overworked DBA per year from endangering their job online, I say it's worth it. How far are you willing to go to protect people against themselves? Personally, I'm willing to go so far as to expect the person to think about whether to hit reply or reply-to before sending the mail. I don't see that as unreasonable. Well, neither is checking whether you're sending it the right place unreasonable. The difference here being if you have to do it each time you're posting to the mailing list or that once in a blue moon where there's something that should remain private. So I respect but having to manually add a Reply-To header to each message I send to pgsql-general is not my idea of fun. I was not aware that Apple Mail was such a primitive email client. You should consider switching to something that has a reply-to button. I'm very disappointed in Apple. You should read the original post. Thomas suggested So set reply-to in messages you send by yourself - it will be honored.. That's what I'm talking about here, not Reply All-buttons (which it has, with reasonable keyboard shortcuts, even). I can also add a Reply-To: field on my composer window and even have it pre-filled for all my outgoing email, but the features of my MUA are not point here :) You may not care about usability or user experience, but remember that what seems to be correct from a technical perpective is not always the right thing to do. As I said, consider getting a real email client if this is wasting so much of your time. It doesn't cause me any undue effort. It's good for me, so it's good for everyone Or, you could just be lonely. I resent that you're trying to make this a personal thing. I think you've spent enough man hours complaining about this to manually work around the problem for several years, which blows your this wastes too much of my valuable time argument out of the water. And it's not as much time as it is energy. I've only used this mailing- list for a few days, and I've already had to manually resend mails to the mailing-list several times. If I manage to save myself from that only 5 times, i figure talking this debate has been worth it :) smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On 17/10/2008, at 14.06, Tom Lane wrote: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mikkel_H=F8gh?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yay, even more manual labour instead of having the computers doing the work for us. What's your next suggestion, go back to pen and paper? Please stop wasting everyone's time with this. The list policy has been debated adequately in the past. You are not going to change it. It is probably going to come up again every once in a while, as long as it's not changed, but I will respect your wishes. -- Kind regards, Mikkel Høgh [EMAIL PROTECTED] smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 01:02:57PM +0200, Mikkel Høgh wrote: Yay, even more manual labour instead of having the computers doing the work for us. What's your next suggestion, go back to pen and paper? My suggestion would be to use a mail user agent that knows how to read the list headers, which were standardized many years ago. Then you reply to list. Mutt has done this for at least a few years now. I don't know about other MUAs. A -- Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
In response to Mikkel Høgh [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 17/10/2008, at 14.01, Bill Moran wrote: Or, you could just be lonely. I resent that you're trying to make this a personal thing. I was going to answer the rest of this email, then I realized that the real problem was right here, and discussing anything else was dancing around the issue and wasting time. You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal thing. It's personal because you are the only one complaining about it. Despite the large number of people on this list, I don't see anyone jumping in to defend you. I'm not saying your problems aren't real, I'm just saying you're apparently the only person in this community that has enough trouble with them to take the time to start a discussion. To that degree, the problem is very personal to you. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 412-422-3463x4023 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
* Bill Moran ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal thing. It's personal because you are the only one complaining about it. Despite the large number of people on this list, I don't see anyone jumping in to defend you. Ugh. No one else is jumping in simply because we've already been through all of this and it hasn't and isn't going to change. The PG lists are the odd ones out here, not the other way around, I assure you. One might compare it to our continued use of CVS. It's wrong and backwards and all that, but most of the PG community is used to it and changing is a pain. shrug. Enjoy, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Bill Moran wrote: You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal thing. It's personal because you are the only one complaining about it. Despite the large number of people on this list, I don't see anyone jumping in to defend you. Mikkel is right, every other well-organized mailing list I've ever been on handles things the sensible way he suggests, but everybody on his side who's been on lists here for a while already knows this issue is a dead horse. Since I use the most advanced e-mail client on the market I just work around that the settings here are weird, it does annoy me a bit anytime I stop to think about it though. -- * Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 09:27:46AM -0400, Greg Smith wrote: Mikkel is right, every other well-organized mailing list I've ever been on handles things the sensible way he suggests, but everybody on his side They may be well-organized, but they're doing bad things to the mail headers. RFC 5322 (which just obsoleted 2822) says this: When the Reply-To: field is present, it indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent. The mailing list is not the author of the message. Therefore it should not alter that header. Moreover, since you are allowed at most one Reply-To header, if the original author needs individual responses to go to some other address, then that Reply-To: header will be lost if the list munges them. There is therefore a mail standards reason not to munge the headers, and it rests in the rules about origin fields and in the potential for lost functionality. Given the project's goal of SQL conformance, why would we blow off SMTP standards? (Anyway, I agree with Tom, so I'm saying nothing more in this thread.) A -- Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
I resent that you're trying to make this a personal thing. I was going to answer the rest of this email, then I realized that the real problem was right here, and discussing anything else was dancing around the issue and wasting time. You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal thing. It's personal because you are the only one complaining about it. Despite the large number of people on this list, I don't see anyone jumping in to defend you. I'm not saying your problems aren't real, I'm just saying you're apparently the only person in this community that has enough trouble with them to take the time to start a discussion. To that degree, the problem is very personal to you. I was going to stay out of this but I'll jump in and defend him. The people on this list are so pedantic, so sure that their way is the only way that they absolutely rain nuclear fire down on anyone who dares to disagree. And you wonder why no one sprang to his defense??? And, I do agree with him on this issue. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Collin Kidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was going to stay out of this but I'll jump in and defend him. The people on this list are so pedantic, so sure that their way is the only way that they absolutely rain nuclear fire down on anyone who dares to disagree. And you wonder why no one sprang to his defense??? And, I do agree with him on this issue. I prefer the list the way it is. And so do a very large, very silent majority of users. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On 17/10/2008, at 16.12, Scott Marlowe wrote: On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Collin Kidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was going to stay out of this but I'll jump in and defend him. The people on this list are so pedantic, so sure that their way is the only way that they absolutely rain nuclear fire down on anyone who dares to disagree. And you wonder why no one sprang to his defense??? And, I do agree with him on this issue. I prefer the list the way it is. And so do a very large, very silent majority of users. And no one messes with the silent majority and their spokesmen ;) smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Mikkel Høgh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17/10/2008, at 16.12, Scott Marlowe wrote: On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Collin Kidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was going to stay out of this but I'll jump in and defend him. The people on this list are so pedantic, so sure that their way is the only way that they absolutely rain nuclear fire down on anyone who dares to disagree. And you wonder why no one sprang to his defense??? And, I do agree with him on this issue. I prefer the list the way it is. And so do a very large, very silent majority of users. And no one messes with the silent majority and their spokesmen ;) No, no one makes idiotic arguments that go against the RFCs for how to run a mailing list and then makes the entire pgsql community change from the rather sensible way it's done to a non-sensical way to accomodate broken email clients. But I thought that was rather obvious. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
free unfettered and open discussion without interference from ANY entity is a requirement of a democracy the REAL question is ..is this a democracy??? Thanks Scott Martin Please vote November 4 __ Disclaimer and confidentiality note Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relates to the official business of Sender. This transmission is of a confidential nature and Sender does not endorse distribution to any party other than intended recipient. Sender does not necessarily endorse content contained within this transmission. CC: pgsql-general@postgresql.org From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:15:20 +0200 On 17/10/2008, at 16.12, Scott Marlowe wrote: On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Collin Kidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was going to stay out of this but I'll jump in and defend him. The people on this list are so pedantic, so sure that their way is the only way that they absolutely rain nuclear fire down on anyone who dares to disagree. And you wonder why no one sprang to his defense??? And, I do agree with him on this issue. I prefer the list the way it is. And so do a very large, very silent majority of users. And no one messes with the silent majority and their spokesmen ;) _ Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Martin Gainty escribió: free unfettered and open discussion without interference from ANY entity is a requirement of a democracy the REAL question is ..is this a democracy??? _Of course_ it isn't ... (thankfully!) -- Alvaro Herrera -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 8:24 AM, Martin Gainty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: free unfettered and open discussion without interference from ANY entity is a requirement of a democracy the REAL question is ..is this a democracy??? No, it's a well mostly well behaved meritocracy. And I prefer that. I believe that free and unfettered discussion is important to many quality forms of governance, not just democracies. I really do prefer the way this list works because when I hit reply all to a discussion with Bob Smith and Postgresql-general I know that Bob gets a direct answer from me, now, when he needs it at 2am when his servers are puking their data out their gigE ports, and the rest of the list gets it whenever the mailing list server can get around to it. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Scott Marlowe escribió: I really do prefer the way this list works because when I hit reply all to a discussion with Bob Smith and Postgresql-general I know that Bob gets a direct answer from me, now, when he needs it at 2am when his servers are puking their data out their gigE ports, and the rest of the list gets it whenever the mailing list server can get around to it. Right. It also works in the following situations: 1. Bob Smith posted without being subscribed; when the moderator approves and somebody replies to Bob, whenever Bob responds the person that he is responding to will receive his response right away without having to wait for the moderator. 1a. Note that this means that crossposting to lists from other projects works too (for example when there are discussions between here and FreeBSD) 2. In the example (1) above, Bob is sure to receive the response, whereas if the list was the Reply-To-set kind, Bob would never get it; he'd have to troll the archives 3. Discussions continue to work even when the list servers die (happens, even if rare) or they are very slow (relatively frequent) -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Sigh... wasting another junk of bandwidth with this bike shed discussion Granted, replying here is more annoying and less convenient compared to other lists - as long as your MUA still does not provide decent support for mailing lists. Down back from 1998 is RFC 2369 that defined additional headers for mailing lists to indicate important information (e.g. how to post messages). Thus, since then there is no excuse in hijacking Reply-To headers for use of simplifying mailing list replies. Even if for the last ten years most MUAs did not care adding support, there is no real reason for blaming mailing list maintainers that follow current standards for inconveniences caused by dumb MUAs. Especially if there is a reasonable workaround (using Replay All - not ideal as any workaround but manageable). Thus, *please* complain with the maintainer of your MUA to get the annoyance alleviated - or change your MUA. As long as there are friendly list maintainers that abuse mail headers for overcoming deficiencies of some MUAs, there will be no change for the better with MUAs. Sorry I'm a bit fussy here, but nowadays there is so much effort wasted with solving the wrong problems in making bad things bearable instead of fixing the underlying reasons in the first place Rainer Collin Kidder wrote I resent that you're trying to make this a personal thing. I was going to answer the rest of this email, then I realized that the real problem was right here, and discussing anything else was dancing around the issue and wasting time. You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal thing. It's personal because you are the only one complaining about it. Despite the large number of people on this list, I don't see anyone jumping in to defend you. I'm not saying your problems aren't real, I'm just saying you're apparently the only person in this community that has enough trouble with them to take the time to start a discussion. To that degree, the problem is very personal to you. I was going to stay out of this but I'll jump in and defend him. The people on this list are so pedantic, so sure that their way is the only way that they absolutely rain nuclear fire down on anyone who dares to disagree. And you wonder why no one sprang to his defense??? And, I do agree with him on this issue. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:56:34 -0400 Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Bill Moran ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal thing. It's personal because you are the only one complaining about it. Despite the large number of people on this list, I don't see anyone jumping in to defend you. Ugh. No one else is jumping in simply because we've already been through all of this and it hasn't and isn't going to change. The PG lists are the odd ones out here, not the other way around, I assure you. One might compare it to our continued use of CVS. It's wrong and backwards and all that, but most of the PG community is used to it and changing is a pain. shrug. I'd say because postgresql list has been used to it by a longer time than most of the new comers doing the other way around did. But it seems that the new comers are the most vocal. Maybe because what's in the email headers have been abstracted to them long ago they never had the need to look what they are for and use them properly getting all the functionality their way has and some additional bits too. It is surprising how many people think to have enough knowledge in email distribution systems to discuss an RFC that has been already rewritten 1 time. It would be nice if all those people spent their time rewriting in a coherent way that RFC so that Reply-To works as they think is best for the overall Internet without breaking any already existent functionality before challenging this list consolidated habits. Settings of ml are generally a mirror of their community. Decent email clients have a switch for reckless people. That's freedom. Mine is called: Reply button invokes mailing list reply. Decent lists generally have quite helpful headers for filtering and choosing to reply to the right address. If you're for freedom... then let the recipients choose. Not the list. If people insist in badly configuring/choosing their email clients how far are you willing to go to protect them against themselves and imposing a toll on the rest of the others? I think the overall amount of the time I spent choosing the right button in my life is lower than the time a single person has spent writing 1 post on this topic and much much much lower than the time they will have to spend in excuses (if anything worse) the first time they will send to the wrong address. But still it is much more than the time the people are complaining have spent reading RFC 2822 and considering its implications. But maybe this will give everyone a chance to consider all the small coherent technical details that good engineers placed deciding about email headers and email clients and reconsider what RFC are there for. If headers are properly set the action taken once you press your chosen button is unambiguous and you conserve as much information as possible. If you think the majority is right since most of the people that arrived to the Internet late got used to mangled Reply-To I think that mistakes are educating. But till people will ignore what's available and why I bet they will just learn to wait 20 minutes before sending any email after their first expensive error, rather than considering other ways to operate. BTW consider this even from a HCI point of view... you still need 2 functions: one to send to list one to author. Saying you just want one button since 99% of times you'll reply to the list is making the wrong expensive choice even more probable. Once you've 2 buttons why should you mangle the headers and give them meaning they don't have? Because most of the people aren't able to properly chose and configure their email client? What's wrong between making the difference in the header, in the client and in your mind between Reply-to and List-Post? Or is it better that the client thinks that Reply-To is replying to the Sender (that's not true), the mailing list thinks that the Reply-To is the List-Post (that's not true) and you think that today is a good day to play lottery (In Italy it may be true)? If you're among the reckless people you could get used to invoke the send to list button and let your client send it to the Reply-To in case there is no List-Post... or whatever bad habit you enjoy more. But I see no reason to harass an RFC. What about non standard web sites that have to cope with not standard browsers and then being forced to adapt browsers that were already standard to cope with non standard web sites? Does it sound familiar? I beg everyone pardon, especially to Tom Lane whose replies always shine here, but I couldn't resist to reply to people thinking I'm not sensible, I took it personally ;) Evidently I'm old enough to know the existence of RFCs but not mature enough ;) -- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
* Ivan Sergio Borgonovo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'd say because postgresql list has been used to it by a longer time than most of the new comers doing the other way around did. But it seems that the new comers are the most vocal. sigh. First people complain that poor Mikkel is the only one complaining, now people are bitching that us 'new comers' are the most vocal when we point out he's not alone. Yes, the PG lists have been around a long time. So have the Debian lists. In the end, it's not a contest. This discussion obviously isn't going anywhere tho, and it's not going to change the list policy, so let's just drop it, please. I'm sure we'll all have an opportunity to revisit it (again) in another 6 months. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote: There is therefore a mail standards reason not to munge the headers, and it rests in the rules about origin fields and in the potential for lost functionality. I should have included the standard links to both sides of this discussion: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml I find the Principle of Minimal Bandwidth and Principle of Least Total Work arguments in the latter match my personal preferences here better (particularly as someone who only cares about on-list replies even more than the 90% of the time given in that example), while respecting that true RFC-compliance is also a reasonable perspective. It's also clear to me you'll never change the mind of anyone who had adopted a firm stance on either side here. My spirit for e-mail pedantry arguments was broken recently anyway, when I had someone I'm compelled to communicate with regularly complain that they couldn't follow my top-posted messages and requested me to reply like everybody else to their mail in the future. -- * Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Bill Moran wrote: You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal thing. It's personal because you are the only one complaining about it. Despite the large number of people on this list, I don't see anyone jumping in to defend you. I'm another in the crowd that had this same discussion when I joined years ago. I had the same point of view as Mikkel, but I've adapted to the community way of doing things. When I use Reply All in Thunderbird, it adds a To: to each of the individuals in the discussion, and a CC: to the list. Since I personally don't like receiving multiple copies of emails from this list, I delete all of the To: addressees and change the list from CC: to To:. Would be nice if everyone did the same. -- Guy Rouillier -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Guy Rouillier wrote: When I use Reply All in Thunderbird, it adds a To: to each of the individuals in the discussion, and a CC: to the list. Since I personally don't like receiving multiple copies of emails from this list, I delete all of the To: addressees and change the list from CC: to To:. Would be nice if everyone did the same. I don't know about Thunderbird, but my email client has a keystroke that does exactly that. I disable that feature though, because I don't like it; I very much prefer the two copies because I get the fastest one first (of course, I only receive one -- the system makes sure that the second one is not delivered to me but discarded silently). I would be really annoyed if my mail system inflicted so much pain on my as Thunderbird seems to inflict on you. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Serge Fonville [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Altough I am not sure what the real issue is,I do know that on (for example) the tomcat mailing list, when I choose reply (in gmail) the to: field contains the address of the mailing list. Based on what I know, this should be relatively easy to set up in the mailing list manager. just my 2ct Serge Fonvilee On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guy Rouillier wrote: When I use Reply All in Thunderbird, it adds a To: to each of the individuals in the discussion, and a CC: to the list. Since I personally don't like receiving multiple copies of emails from this list, I delete all of the To: addressees and change the list from CC: to To:. Would be nice if everyone did the same. I don't know about Thunderbird, but my email client has a keystroke that does exactly that. I disable that feature though, because I don't like it; I very much prefer the two copies because I get the fastest one first (of course, I only receive one -- the system makes sure that the second one is not delivered to me but discarded silently). I would be really annoyed if my mail system inflicted so much pain on my as Thunderbird seems to inflict on you. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
I am a member of a number of lists, some of which exhibit this 'reply-to' behaviour and I have also managed to adapt... to a point. Sometimes, however, I do end up replying directly to the poster rather than through the list. Tellingly, I very nearly sent this post directly to Serge Fonvilee. Without wanting to be too controversial, I have generally found that the lists which have the default reply configured like this do tend to be those that are dominated by members who are, shall we say, pedantic about protocol and 'netiquette'. Personally I would prefer the default reply-to to go to the list, but I'm not really bothered about it. My 2 cents. Disclaimer: If we are not talking about the default 'reply-to' behaviour of this list, please ignore this post; I came upon the thread late and it is possible that I am at cross purposes. Kind reagards, Dave Coventry 2008/10/17 Serge Fonville [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Altough I am not sure what the real issue is, I do know that on (for example) the tomcat mailing list, when I choose reply (in gmail) the to: field contains the address of the mailing list. Based on what I know, this should be relatively easy to set up in the mailing list manager. just my 2ct Serge Fonvilee -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
I am not fond of this approach either. I never find myself replying directly to the poster. I actually greatly prefer forums which email me a copy of every post with a nice link to the original thread. 95% of the time I do not even need to use the link. The latest posting is enough. This makes things more organized as accessible. Dave Coventry wrote: I am a member of a number of lists, some of which exhibit this 'reply-to' behaviour and I have also managed to adapt... to a point. Sometimes, however, I do end up replying directly to the poster rather than through the list. Tellingly, I very nearly sent this post directly to Serge Fonvilee. Without wanting to be too controversial, I have generally found that the lists which have the default reply configured like this do tend to be those that are dominated by members who are, shall we say, pedantic about protocol and 'netiquette'. Personally I would prefer the default reply-to to go to the list, but I'm not really bothered about it. My 2 cents. Disclaimer: If we are not talking about the default 'reply-to' behaviour of this list, please ignore this post; I came upon the thread late and it is possible that I am at cross purposes. Kind reagards, Dave Coventry 2008/10/17 Serge Fonville [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Altough I am not sure what the real issue is, I do know that on (for example) the tomcat mailing list, when I choose reply (in gmail) the to: field contains the address of the mailing list. Based on what I know, this should be relatively easy to set up in the mailing list manager. just my 2ct Serge Fonvilee
