Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
Hello! On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 15:29:03 -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I understood that (I'm not an idiot, as you may be implying). BTW, please don't be so arrogant to ask others "Please read the post carefuly before replying" [sic]. You win nothing with this attitude. Sorry.. I didn't want to imply that you are and idiot. What should be done when the sender wants his/her personal replies back to a different address *BUT* doesn't want to receive all replies to his/her post personally, that is, the poster still wants to keep the discussion on the list? Add another Reply-To field to the message? I see that there is no point in continuing this debate, I apologize if I insulted you; it was not my intention. But I do doubt it that it is the *right* way to force everyone to use mutt. Some of us just don't like it. :) best regards, Rok Papez, Student at Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
Rok Papez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When I hit reply it tells me that From: and Reply-To: fields differ and asks me to what e-mail adress do I want to reply (to mailing list or to the author personal mailbox). - Now that's a smart MUA. Except that it's lying to you. I know a non-trivial number of people for whom, if you answered "personal mailbox" to that question, the response would end up going somewhere that's never read or bouncing. It's also downright rude for people who are answering administrative mail; it forces them to put the role address as their From address, which I personally find distasteful. Being able to indicate that yes, "Russ Allbery" is responding to you, but you should send your responses to his mail to postmaster@leland so that other people can help you too is valuable semantics. MUAs like yours cause inexperienced users to override reply-to, which on more than one occasion has resulted in those people's questions going unanswered for far long than was necessary. And, in the spirit of this thread, no, I am not going to put the role address in the From header, because that's giving in to broken clients. The RFCs spell out what the From header is and what the Reply-To header is, and I'm going to abide by the standards. Software that doesn't is defective and should be fixed. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
Russell Nelson said: Tim Pierce writes: Sounds great! I'm all ears. Where do we submit bug reports for Microsoft Internet Mail, Microsoft Outlook, and WebTV? The problem (as I see it) is that there is no requirements or even guidelines for MUAs. How's about we get all the mailing list manager people together, and bash out a set of requirements that a mailing list-friendly MUA will have. Then we either find a group to publish them, or else create our own group, and publish them ourselves. It sounds like we need something like the Good Net-Keeping Seal of Approval, which describes minimal standards for newsreaders. (http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/) Having looked at this previously, I had thought it applied to MUAs too, but on subsequent examination this appears not to be the case. -- Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] "To define recursion, we must first define recursion."
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 10:45:21AM -0800, Kai MacTane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like it wouldn't be already? Or are you suggesting that the originator would manage all the mail coming back to hir, acting as a temporary gateway between the two lists? The Mail-Followup-To header will make this work correctly for people who use MUAs that support it. When people do group replies, the mail will be sent to both lists.
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
On Feb 19 1999, Rok Papez wrote: The mailing list sets the Reply-To: address to the mailing list, the From: field is preserved. When I hit the Reply buttin in PMMail (MUA), he notices the difference between the "From:" and "Reply-To:" list, pops up a quick dialog asking me to choose to whom to reply; to the list (Reply-To) or to the poster (From:). Voila.. problem solved. No. IMO, it's not as easy as you want to make it, because this is a misuse of the Reply-To field. As far as I know, messages compliant with the RFCs can't have two Reply-To fields (which one would the MUA choose, anyway?). What happens is that I have three mailing lists where the users have requested me to set the Reply-To field pointing back to the list. To accomplish that, I had to add Reply-To to headerremove and to headeradd (I'm using ezmlm to manage the lists). This has the very inconvenient "feature" that whenever the list gets spammed and the spammer says in the body of the message "If you don't want to receive our messages anymore, just hit the reply button and include 'remove' as the Subject." Then, the list just gets a ton of those "remove" posts. :-( This is one of the particular cases when the poster is not on the mailing list but has set a Reply-To field and "want" the replies back to him (I'm assuming that the Reply-To field contains a valid recipient address, even though we know that's not what happens in practice). I wish I knew of a free less brain-dead MUA for Windows that realized there is a Mail-Followup-To field and allowed users to reply to sender, reply to list or both, so that I could stop setting this damn Reply-To field myself upon request of my users. Are there any ports of Mutt to the Windows world so that I can recommend that for my users? []s, Roger... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/ Undergrad. Computer Science Student - "Windows? Linux and X!" Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
"Rok Papez" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | When I hit reply it tells me that From: and Reply-To: fields differ and | asks me to what e-mail adress do I want to reply (to mailing list or | to the author personal mailbox). | - Now that's a smart MUA. | | And nearly all responses to my post that I got were delivered to me | twice: Once thru mailing list and once directly. What a waste of my | time and bandwidth :(. If your MUA is so smart, why doesn't it suppress the duplicates for you (like procmail)? Otherwise, you cannot avoid seeing *some*, because SMTP itself doesn't guarantee not to generate some.
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 08:53:51AM -0500, Peter Green wrote: # On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Rok Papez wrote: # I also moderate a mailing list where most people use PMMail and # mailing list sets the Reply-To. There has been only 1 (!) mistake # when someone replied to the mailing list instead of privately. # # Try subscribing to the inet-access mailing list. They set the Reply-To: to # the list, and it's nearly 2-5 times per day that someone accidentally # posts a private response to the list. now that is really strange I am on a list for something completely non technical, shadowrun, and it is VERY rare that someone sends a message to the list that was supposed to be private. Also everyone complains when a reply-to is passed on from their MUA as to reply to them, as it makes it hard to reply to the list. -- /- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -\ |Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. | |Pearson| Attention span is quickening.| |Developer | Welcome to the Information Age. | \ http://www.superlibrary.com/people/justin/ --/
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:30:03 -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 19 1999, Rok Papez wrote: The mailing list sets the Reply-To: address to the mailing list, the From: field is preserved. When I hit the Reply buttin in PMMail (MUA), he notices the difference between the "From:" and "Reply-To:" list, pops up a quick dialog asking me to choose to whom to reply; to the list (Reply-To) or to the poster (From:). Voila.. problem solved. No. IMO, it's not as easy as you want to make it, because this is a misuse of the Reply-To field. As far as I know, messages compliant with the RFCs can't have two Reply-To fields (which one would the MUA choose, anyway?). Who is talking about two "Reply-To:" fields There is only one, the one that mailin lists creates or the original-one that is preserved by the mailing list. Please read the post carefuly before replying; and if I wasn't clear enough ask me to clearify it. I'll write it again: If I post to the mailing list *without* "Reply-To:" field mailinglist creates one that points to itself, the "From:" field points to the original author of the post. If I post *with* "Reply-To:" field already set, then mailinglist does *not* add a "Reply-To:" field. This way it is solved. If I wasn't subscribed to the mailinglist, I could set the "Reply-To:" field to my personal mailbox and everyone will be replying to me, not the mailing list. What happens is that I have three mailing lists where the users have requested me to set the Reply-To field pointing back to the list. To accomplish that, I had to add Reply-To to headerremove and to headeradd (I'm using ezmlm to manage the lists). You don't set it.. mailing list software sets it. damn Reply-To field myself upon request of my users. Are there any ports of Mutt to the Windows world so that I can recommend that for my users? Mutt is very unintuitive (PINE *is* intuitive), I tried it, didn't like it. I wish that PINE had as many features as mutt has, tho. I prefer PINE and PMMail over anything else. best regards, Rok Papez, Student at Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Justin Bell wrote: On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 08:53:51AM -0500, Peter Green wrote: # Try subscribing to the inet-access mailing list. They set the Reply-To: to # the list, and it's nearly 2-5 times per day that someone accidentally # posts a private response to the list. now that is really strange Not really, when you consider how busy everyone on the list is. It's not a matter of people on the list not understanding how Reply-To: technically works...it's a matter of being in something of a hurry and not being able to adequately check the headers. /pg -- Peter Green Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:05:31 -0500, Mark Bainter wrote: Just use mutt. ( http://www.mutt.org ) (And yes, I'm not using it now. Qmail comes to my work account because I'm too lazy to move it. I use mutt for all my other lists and it works great. It is able to recognize lists and when you want to reply to a list address it can handle it w/no need to munge reply-to's. Check it out.) I tried it... It wasn't pleasent for use. I'm used to PINE, joe, PMMail. Mutt is a step in a totaly new direction, I know it is more powerful; but I PINE is a lot more intuitive for use (for me that is ) :). best regards, Rok Papez, Student at Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
Hi Peter. # Try subscribing to the inet-access mailing list. They set the Reply-To: to # the list, and it's nearly 2-5 times per day that someone accidentally # posts a private response to the list. now that is really strange Not really, when you consider how busy everyone on the list is. It's not a matter of people on the list not understanding how Reply-To: technically works...it's a matter of being in something of a hurry and not being able to adequately check the headers. Exactly my point.. If you took your time and read (instead of scanning) the message before replying, those "Ups I posted a private mail to the mailing list" mistakes wouldn't hapen with "Reply-To:" field set to the mailinglist address. best regards, Rok Papez, Student at Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
RE: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
Hi Mark. On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:31:22 -0500, Mark Bainter wrote: Then patch pine to work properly and/or add the features you need. Don't break the list to fix a MUA problem. -shrug- I use mutt for mutiple reasons. I personally like the interface, but my biggest reason is that it does things 'The Right Way' and doesn't care if all the other mail clients don't. That is the attitude I like and prefer to see. It's one of the reasons I like Qmail. Because Dan doesn't think he needs to make Qmail Sendmail-compliant. (gag) If your mail client can't handle qmail because it supports sendmail, not the RFC then that's your problem. No.. I'll just hit the ReplyToAll button on PMMail, I can play "don't care about others" too :(. Didn't see no RFC on mailinglist policy. And there is one rule about communications that you probably never heard of: When you receive, be as liberal as you can be. When you send, be as conservative as you can be. best regards, Rok Papez, Student at Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
Um, no. Everybody honors Reply-To. The problem is that most MUAs Not quite everybody. cc:Mail (at least some versions) completely ignores it. -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note my new [EMAIL PROTECTED] address which will become my default address in March, and which works now.
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 03:14:53PM +0100, Rok Papez wrote: On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:30:03 -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: damn Reply-To field myself upon request of my users. Are there any ports of Mutt to the Windows world so that I can recommend that for my users? Mutt is very unintuitive (PINE *is* intuitive), I tried it, didn't like it. I wish that PINE had as many features as mutt has, tho. I prefer PINE and PMMail over anything else. I've been using Pine for about 3 years (and liked it, albeit it's very slow on big mailboxes). After switching to mutt (for Maildir and PGP support) I found mutt _very_ intuitive.. Nothing wrong there. I only use Pine for reading News, nowadays. Greetz, Peter. -- .| Peter van Dijk | mo|VERWEG stoned worden of coden .| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | mo|VERWEG dat is de levensvraag | mo|VERWEG coden of stoned worden | mo|VERWEG stonend worden En coden | mo|VERWEG hmm | mo|VERWEG dan maar stoned worden en slashdot lezen:)
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
On Sat, Feb 20, 1999 at 09:42:45AM -0500, Greg Owen {gowen} wrote:
# Um, no. Everybody honors Reply-To. The problem is that most MUAs
#
# Not quite everybody. cc:Mail (at least some versions) completely
# ignores it.
that killed on the MTA level
--
/- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Pearson| Attention span is quickening.|
|Developer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\ http://www.superlibrary.com/people/justin/ --/
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
Rok Papez writes: Who is talking about two "Reply-To:" fields Anybody who suggests that the Reply-To should be set to "the" list. What happens when mail is sent to multiple lists? Each sets the Reply-To to its own list, and the discussion is immediately fragmented. Doh! -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
Scott Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If your MUA is so smart, why doesn't it suppress the duplicates
for you (like procmail)?
Otherwise, you cannot avoid seeing *some*, because SMTP itself doesn't
guarantee not to generate some.
Though I'm not using procmail too heavily lately, I suppress dups by
using formail in my .qmail-lists-default file:
|{ formail -D 65536 .msgid.cache exit 99 } || exit 0
Bogus reply-to behaviors don't trouble me, because I subscribe under
the address "budney-lists-qmail", and personal replies (without human
intervention) are not distinguished from list traffic, where dups are
killed.
Sadly, I think I'm one of the bogus-MUA users. I use Mew under emacs,
and can only find one "reply" function, which seems to work as "reply
to all". Does anyone know Mew, and know whether I've missed something?
Len.
--
46. Take all Admonitions thankfully in what Time or Place Soever given
but afterwards not being culpable take a Time Place convenient to let
him him know it that gave them.
-- George Washington, "Rules of Civility Decent Behaviour"
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
- "Len Budney" [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | Sadly, I think I'm one of the bogus-MUA users. I use Mew under | emacs, and can only find one "reply" function, which seems to work | as "reply to all". Does anyone know Mew, and know whether I've | missed something? I use mew. No, you haven't missed anything (I think). The intention is for you to go and edit the recipient fields, weeding out those you don't want to respond to. Also, Mew doesn't even look at the Reply-To field. I've been thinking about doing something about these shortcomings myself for a long while, but I just haven't got around to it yet. (My wife has a round tuit, but she never lets me use it.) - Harald
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
Tim Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 February 1999 at 18:09:39 -0500 On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 08:32:16AM -0500, Peter Green wrote: Why doesn't Qmail mailing list set the Reply To: field to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". It is very anoying that I must type the mailing list address for every message I respond to. Check out http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html for a great reason *not* to set the Reply-To: header. Any reasonable mailer should have some sort of "reply to (l)ist, (s)ender, (b)oth" option. Unfortunately, there's an awful lot of unreasonable mailers in the world, which makes that philosophy impractical. While I sympathize with the opinions offered in "Reply-to Considered Harmful," it's mostly ivory tower theorizing. The lack of MUA support for useful options is a bitch. But I have to work hard to reply direct to people on a few lists I'm on that use munging, and I see private stuff accidentally posted on those lists more than once a month. Those are real harms. The problem is that not munging the reply makes the common case harder, but munging the reply makes some less common, but still definitely present, cases harder. And a very few impossible. I can't get around the impossible, so I don't mung reply-to on lists I control. -- David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms Join the 20th century before it's too late!
Re: two copies (was Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:)
Scott Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 February 1999 at 18:46:24 -0500 Fact: SMTP does not guarantee that you won't see two copies of any given message. We all know this, right? It's come up again and again, and the fair comment is always that anyone who cares about that problem will have their MTA set up to deal with it. Irony: what's the point of complaining if your name appears twice (perhaps indirectly) in the headers, when you simply cannot avoid seeing some messages twice, for *whatever* reason? So deal with it quietly. Well, frequency is relevant. The SMTP duplications don't happen very often; I've never seen one that I can be sure of. Whereas the direct copy of mail that also went to a list I'm on I see every day. I'm using the formail message-id cache to filter these, myself. -- David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms Join the 20th century before it's too late!
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
On 02/19, Justin Bell wrote: # I also moderate a mailing list where most people use PMMail and # mailing list sets the Reply-To. There has been only 1 (!) mistake # when someone replied to the mailing list instead of privately. # Try subscribing to the inet-access mailing list. They set the # Reply-To: to the list, and it's nearly 2-5 times per day that # someone accidentally posts a private response to the list. now that is really strange I am on a list for something completely non technical, shadowrun, and it is VERY rare that someone sends a message to the list that was supposed to be private. Also everyone complains when a reply-to is passed on from their MUA as to reply to them, as it makes it hard to reply to the list. People will complain without Reply-To, people will complain with Reply-To. But if you are running a list with people from rival companies... -- Roman V. Isaev http://www.gunlab.com.ru Moscow, Russia
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
Text written by Russell Nelson at 03:18 PM 2/19/99 -: Rok Papez writes: Who is talking about two "Reply-To:" fields Anybody who suggests that the Reply-To should be set to "the" list. What happens when mail is sent to multiple lists? Each sets the Reply-To to its own list, and the discussion is immediately fragmented. Doh! Like it wouldn't be already? Or are you suggesting that the originator would manage all the mail coming back to hir, acting as a temporary gateway between the two lists? Normally, discussions on two different lists probably *should* be fragmented -- or at least, they normally will be. After all, they are two _separate_ lists, right? - Kai MacTane System Administrator Online Partners.com, Inc. - From the Jargon File: (v4.0.0, 25 Jul 1996) casting the runes /n./ What a guru does when you ask him or her to run a particular program and type at it because it never works for anyone else; esp. used when nobody can ever see what the guru is doing different from what J. Random Luser does. Compare incantation, runes, examining the entrails.
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
Hi Russell. On 19 Feb 1999 15:18:39 -, Russell Nelson wrote: Who is talking about two "Reply-To:" fields Anybody who suggests that the Reply-To should be set to "the" list. What happens when mail is sent to multiple lists? Each sets the Reply-To to its own list, and the discussion is immediately fragmented. Doh! Discussions get fragmented very often.. I don't see a problem here. It is a bit weird to post a message to multiple mailing lists and expect the discussion *not* to get fragmented. Even *this* discussion got very fragmented and it was posted only to this mailing list. best regards, Rok Papez, Student at Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
On Fri 1999-02-19 (15:22), Rok Papez wrote: On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:05:31 -0500, Mark Bainter wrote: Just use mutt. ( http://www.mutt.org ) (And yes, I'm not using it now. Qmail comes to my work account because I'm too lazy to move it. I use mutt for all my other lists and it works great. It is able to recognize lists and when you want to reply to a list address it can handle it w/no need to munge reply-to's. Check it out.) I tried it... It wasn't pleasent for use. I'm used to PINE, joe, PMMail. Mutt is a step in a totaly new direction, I know it is more powerful; but I PINE is a lot more intuitive for use (for me that is ) :). I hear this sort of thing a lot. I wish that someone would take the innards of mutt and package them up nicely so that people can write nice interfaces to sit on top of it. That way we'd have all the cool features of mutt (and hopefully some from other MUAs that mutt doesn't have) with an interface to suit everyones taste. Anyone keen? :-) maybe one day when I have time... - Keith Rok Papez, -- Keith Burdis - MSc (Com Sci) - Rhodes University, South Africa Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW : http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~keith/ IRC : Panthras JAPH "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from a perl script" Standard disclaimer. ---
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
On Feb 19 1999, Rok Papez wrote: On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:30:03 -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. IMO, it's not as easy as you want to make it, because this is a misuse of the Reply-To field. As far as I know, messages compliant with the RFCs can't have two Reply-To fields (which one would the MUA choose, anyway?). Who is talking about two "Reply-To:" fields Anybody who cogitates the possibility of having Reply-To fields pointing to user addresses or mailing list addresses should, at one point or another, think about this issue to avoid using two Reply-To fields. The problem that I reported in my message had to do with the fact that I had to set up another Reply-To field upon request of my users. Since an e-mail can't have two Reply-To fields (as far as I know -- and that was mentioned in my original message), the original one set up by the user has to be removed/invalidated. There is only one, the one that mailin lists creates or the original-one that is preserved by the mailing list. Please read the post carefuly before replying; and if I wasn't clear enough ask me to clearify it. Yes, I understood that (I'm not an idiot, as you may be implying). But realize that the suggestion you so firmly defend is not a complete solution to the problem. What should be done when the sender wants his/her personal replies back to a different address *BUT* doesn't want to receive all replies to his/her post personally, that is, the poster still wants to keep the discussion on the list? Add another Reply-To field to the message? (...) If I post *with* "Reply-To:" field already set, then mailinglist does *not* add a "Reply-To:" field. And then some people will come to the list and say: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why doesn't Qmail mailing list set the Reply To: field to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". This way it is solved. No, it's not solved. BTW, please don't be so arrogant to ask others "Please read the post carefuly before replying" [sic]. You win nothing with this attitude. damn Reply-To field myself upon request of my users. Are there any ports of Mutt to the Windows world so that I can recommend that for my users? Mutt is very unintuitive (PINE *is* intuitive), I tried it, didn't like it. I wish that PINE had as many features as mutt has, tho. I prefer PINE and PMMail over anything else. Pff... I used to use Pine for 4 years until last week, when I decided to switch over to Mutt. I must say that you apparently didn't use Mutt enough to talk about its intuitiveness, for it can have a behavior pretty similar to Pine's: you can set up the keyboard bindings so that the user won't notice the change. And you can even obtain ready-made system-wide configuration files for your system such that Mutt emulates Pine. So, it's as intuitive as Pine. BTW, if some software is intuitive or not is, after all, subjective and and depends on previous experience of the user. If a user used Mutt first, then it would be more intuitive than Pine. Anyway, that was not my point. I wasn't judging if such-and-such software is intuitive. I was just asking if people knew some software smart enough to handle e-mails to mailing lists. I just happened to ask (in jest) if Mutt had any port for Windows, but any other software with such feature will do. []s, Roger... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/ Undergrad. Computer Science Student - "Windows? Linux and X!" Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
Exactly my point.. If you took your time and read (instead of scanning) the message before replying, those "Ups I posted a private mail to the mailing list" mistakes wouldn't hapen with "Reply-To:" field set to the mailinglist address Using stock Unix /bin/mail, try to reply to this message without sending yourself a copy. Take your time, and have fun. Mate
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 02:43:46PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: # #Exactly my point.. If you took your time and read (instead of scanning) #the message before replying, those "Ups I posted a private mail to the #mailing #list" mistakes wouldn't hapen with "Reply-To:" field set to the #mailinglist #address # # Using stock Unix /bin/mail, try to reply to this message without sending # yourself a copy. Take your time, and have fun. # how could he do that, he had to delete /bin/mail when he installed qmail -- /- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -\ |Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. | |Pearson| Attention span is quickening.| |Developer | Welcome to the Information Age. | \ http://www.superlibrary.com/people/justin/ --/
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 11:52:22PM -, Russell Nelson wrote: Tim Pierce writes: Unfortunately, there's an awful lot of unreasonable mailers in the world, which makes that philosophy impractical. Pandering to the unreasonable mailers doesn't help. The chief cost is one of embarrassment to the poor slob who forgot that he was replying to a mailing list. We've all seen it happen. I can't imagine that anybody thinks that's a good thing. How's about we get the unreasonable mailers fixed? Sounds great! I'm all ears. Where do we submit bug reports for Microsoft Internet Mail, Microsoft Outlook, and WebTV? The sad reality is that mailers for the consumer world are getting worse and not better, and we have little power to fix that. Mailers that lack "group-reply" are only the tip of the iceberg; they also lack any useful filtering or filing capability, they fail to identify the message sender, they send replies to the wrong address, they send replies with broken return addresses. Managing a mailing list means making the decision about how to handle people like this. If you're a toy site, you can probably get away with telling all your users to lose the broken software. You can't get away with telling 50,000 users to lose their broken software. Pandering to these users doesn't necessarily help, but ignoring them is no better a solution. Ultimately you have to find some way to cope with their brain damage, until we figure out how to fix it. Like I said, I'm all ears. -- Regards, Tim Pierce RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative system obfuscator and hack-of-all-trades
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
Tim Pierce writes: Sounds great! I'm all ears. Where do we submit bug reports for Microsoft Internet Mail, Microsoft Outlook, and WebTV? The problem (as I see it) is that there is no requirements or even guidelines for MUAs. How's about we get all the mailing list manager people together, and bash out a set of requirements that a mailing list-friendly MUA will have. Then we either find a group to publish them, or else create our own group, and publish them ourselves. Yeah, it's work, but arguing about inserting reply-to is also work. :) I'll be happy to run the mailing list, only ... I'm going to ban the topic of inserting reply-to. :) Anybody have a laundry list of mailing list managers, along with the appropriate places to contact the maintainers? -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 11:03:26PM -, Russell Nelson wrote: Tim Pierce writes: Sounds great! I'm all ears. Where do we submit bug reports for Microsoft Internet Mail, Microsoft Outlook, and WebTV? The problem (as I see it) is that there is no requirements or even guidelines for MUAs. How's about we get all the mailing list manager people together, and bash out a set of requirements that a mailing list-friendly MUA will have. Then we either find a group to publish them, or else create our own group, and publish them ourselves. If all the freely available MUAs and MTAs and list managers decide that they will stick to certain reasonable standards, there will be enough protest from frustrated subscribers to force Microsoft and friends to make their MUAs compatible with these standards. ISPs instead of lowering their standards, perhaps should start giving away smart (and friendly) MUAs to their customers. If these do not exist yet---sponsor projects that would make them. -- --- Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
The problem (as I see it) is that there is no requirements or even guidelines for MUAs. How's about we get all the mailing list manager people together, and bash out a set of requirements that a mailing list-friendly MUA will have. Then we either find a group to publish them, or else create our own group, and publish them ourselves. But there ARE requirements and guidelines for MUAs. They're called RFCs :) Of course, I know plenty of people choose to ignore RFCs. I can offer some suggestions: * Publicize it as much as possible that XYZ Company makes defective software, or if you can't say "defective" say "non-compliant with generally accepted Internet standards". * Get companies (starting with your own) to adopt RFCs or similar as real standards, bound by contractual agreements with an industry association. Consumer electronics companies have done this for years. Everyone's VHS players read tapes the same way. Everyone's CD players read CDs the same way. * Refuse to help people who insist on using broken software. This is a matter of principle more than anything. The minute you start patching your good server against their bad client, you've lost the battle and it's only a matter of time before they ask you to fix this, and this, and this, and... * If that's not an option, support only the stuff you have to and make it clear that in the future you won't be supporting broken code. * If you're an ISP, don't distribute crappy software. Find something free or tell your users what works and what doesn't. I have no problem with software that has extra features to be able to take advantage of more featureful servers. But those clients should be able to handle servers without the features. shag
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
Racer X writes: But there ARE requirements and guidelines for MUAs. They're called RFCs :) Which RFC says ``Thou shalt have separate "Reply to Sender", "Reply to List"[1], and "Reply to All" buttons''? [1] which, of course, really means "Reply to Recipient", but that action only makes sense when the To: address is a mailing list, so better to say "Reply to List". -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
Hi! Why doesn't Qmail mailing list set the Reply To: field to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". It is very anoying that I must type the mailing list address for every message I respond to. What if a poster is not a subscriber? he would set the reply-to field to his personal address. Look up your MUAs doc, and see how you can reply to the addresses in the cc or to fields. Mate
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 11:52:26AM +0300, Roman V. Isaev wrote: On 02/17, Rok Papez wrote: Why doesn't Qmail mailing list set the Reply To: field to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". It is very anoying that I must type the mailing list address for every message I respond to. Touchy question. As listowner, I can say Reply-To brings more harm than good: people tend to forget about it and post private messages to the list. Very embarassing, and sometimes leads to THE conflict (I saw some). Auto-responders also wreak havoc on lists with Reply-To set. Greetz, Peter.
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
Why doesn't Qmail mailing list set the Reply To: field to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". It is very anoying that I must type the mailing list address for every message I respond to. Check out http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html for a great reason *not* to set the Reply-To: header. Any reasonable mailer should have some sort of "reply to (l)ist, (s)ender, (b)oth" option. /pg -- Peter Green Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
At 08:32 AM 2/17/99 -0500, Peter Green wrote: Check out http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html for a great reason *not* to set the Reply-To: header. Any reasonable mailer should have some sort of "reply to (l)ist, (s)ender, (b)oth" option. And also see the discussion forum that's linked to at the bottom of that essay for some differing opinions. One of the more common responses is that without munging, people who hit "Reply to All" in their MUA then need to trim or cull the To: and Cc: fields to remove all other email addresses; otherwise, people will get multiple copies of replies to their own posts. Oddly enough, I have seen quite a few messages on this list start off with things like "Please don't cc: me, I'm on the list." I strongly suspect that these illustrate instances of people forgetting to trim their headers while replying. And, as many people point out in the forum, Mr. Rosenthal's essay doesn't handle the simple reality that most list participants prefer to have Reply-To: set to point back to the list. Before I started running a few mailing lists, I had already seen the "Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful" essay, and referred a few of my list members to it. They didn't care. They said "we want replies to go back to the list!" After a week or two of participating in those lists and having to rewrite the headers every damn time I wanted to reply, I agreed with them. I now munge quite happily, and have had no complaints. - Kai MacTane System Administrator Online Partners.com, Inc. - From the Jargon File: (v4.0.0, 25 Jul 1996) cough and die /v./ Syn. barf. Connotes that the program is throwing its hands up by design rather than because of a bug or oversight. "The parser saw a control-A in its input where it was looking for a printable, so it coughed and died." Compare die, die horribly, scream and die.
Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 08:32:16AM -0500, Peter Green wrote: Why doesn't Qmail mailing list set the Reply To: field to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". It is very anoying that I must type the mailing list address for every message I respond to. Check out http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html for a great reason *not* to set the Reply-To: header. Any reasonable mailer should have some sort of "reply to (l)ist, (s)ender, (b)oth" option. Unfortunately, there's an awful lot of unreasonable mailers in the world, which makes that philosophy impractical. While I sympathize with the opinions offered in "Reply-to Considered Harmful," it's mostly ivory tower theorizing. -- Regards, Tim Pierce RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative system obfuscator and hack-of-all-trades
two copies (was Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:)
Fact: SMTP does not guarantee that you won't see two copies of any given message. We all know this, right? It's come up again and again, and the fair comment is always that anyone who cares about that problem will have their MTA set up to deal with it. Irony: what's the point of complaining if your name appears twice (perhaps indirectly) in the headers, when you simply cannot avoid seeing some messages twice, for *whatever* reason? So deal with it quietly.
