Re: qmail list reply-to

[Bob Ross]

I noticed that also. Some just select reply to all, and it will go both
places, but then the person your replying to will get two of the same email
every time.


- Original Message -
From: "Casey Allen Shobe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 9:43 PM
Subject: qmail list reply-to


> Is there a reason why there is not a reply-to address specified for this
> mailing list?  I'm accustomed to lists with this feature, which enables me
to
> reply to the list easily, and did not notice that I was sending replies
> privately recently...
>
> --
> Casey Allen Shobe / ASI Technologies
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://cshobe.myip.org
> Slackware 7.1 / Linux Echelon-Pro 2.4.0-test8 i686
>

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Greg White]

Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
> 
> Is there a reason why there is not a reply-to address specified for this
> mailing list?  I'm accustomed to lists with this feature, which enables me to
> reply to the list easily, and did not notice that I was sending replies
> privately recently...
> 
> --
> Casey Allen Shobe / ASI Technologies
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://cshobe.myip.org
> Slackware 7.1 / Linux Echelon-Pro 2.4.0-test8 i686

Please, let me be the first:

http://www.halisp.net/halisp/reply-to-harmful.html

;)

GW

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Greg White on Thu, 05 Oct 2000 22:09:35 PDT:

> Please, let me be the first:
> 
> http://www.halisp.net/halisp/reply-to-harmful.html

You stole all my glory. :-)  But maybe I can add:

http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html

Which are some good suggestions, though not 100% supported by all.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 12:11am  up 1 day,  1:57,  3 users,  load average: 1.18, 1.25, 1.13

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Dave Sill]

"Bob Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>I noticed that also. Some just select reply to all, and it will go both
>places, but then the person your replying to will get two of the same email
>every time.

"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better mailer."

If your mailer won't let you edit the To/CC fields beyond "reply" or
"reply to all", it's a worthless hunk of trash. Good mailers are
available for free; there's no excuse not to use one of them.

-Dave

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Russell Nelson]

Bob Ross writes:
 > I noticed that also. Some just select reply to all, and it will go both
 > places, but then the person you're replying to will get two of the same email
 > every time.

Your MUA needs a "Reply to Recipient" command.

-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com | A hate crime makes
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | it illegal to think certain
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | thoughts.  The crime is
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | itself already a crime.

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Robin S. Socha]

* Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bob Ross writes:

>> I noticed that also. Some just select reply to all, and it will go
>> both places, but then the person you're replying to will get two of
>> the same email every time.

> Your MUA needs a "Reply to Recipient" command.

Actually, he needs:

,[ Gnus manual ]
| `broken-reply-to'
|  Elements like `(broken-reply-to . t)' signals that `Reply-To'
|  headers in this group are to be ignored.  This can be useful if
|  you're reading a mailing list group where the listserv has inserted
|  `Reply-To' headers that point back to the listserv itself.  This is
|  broken behavior.  So there!
`
-- 
Robin S. Socha 

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Russell Nelson]

Robin S. Socha writes:
 > * Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
 > > Bob Ross writes:
 > 
 > >> I noticed that also. Some just select reply to all, and it will go
 > >> both places, but then the person you're replying to will get two of
 > >> the same email every time.
 > 
 > > Your MUA needs a "Reply to Recipient" command.
 > 
 > Actually, he needs:
 > 
 > ,[ Gnus manual ]
 > | `broken-reply-to'
 > |  Elements like `(broken-reply-to . t)' signals that `Reply-To'
 > |  headers in this group are to be ignored.  This can be useful if
 > |  you're reading a mailing list group where the listserv has inserted
 > |  `Reply-To' headers that point back to the listserv itself.  This is
 > |  broken behavior.  So there!
 > `

No, actually he needs a "Reply to Recipient" command.  Think about it.

-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com | A hate crime makes
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | it illegal to think certain
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | thoughts.  The crime is
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | itself already a crime.

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Neil Blakey-Milner]

On Sat 2000-10-07 (15:41), Russell Nelson wrote:
>  > > Your MUA needs a "Reply to Recipient" command.
>  > 
>  > Actually, he needs:
>  > 
>  > ,[ Gnus manual ]
>  > | `broken-reply-to'
>  > |  Elements like `(broken-reply-to . t)' signals that `Reply-To'
>  > |  headers in this group are to be ignored.  This can be useful if
>  > |  you're reading a mailing list group where the listserv has inserted
>  > |  `Reply-To' headers that point back to the listserv itself.  This is
>  > |  broken behavior.  So there!
>  > `
> 
> No, actually he needs a "Reply to Recipient" command.  Think about it.

I'll bite.  What am I missing as to how the MUA knows which people are
on the list, and which people aren't on the list, out of the people in
the To and Cc lines?

Neil
-- 
Neil Blakey-Milner
Sunesi Clinical Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Russell Nelson]

Neil Blakey-Milner writes:
 > On Sat 2000-10-07 (15:41), Russell Nelson wrote:
 > >  > > Your MUA needs a "Reply to Recipient" command.
 > >  > 
 > >  > Actually, he needs:
 > >  > 
 > >  > ,[ Gnus manual ]
 > >  > | `broken-reply-to'
 > >  > |  Elements like `(broken-reply-to . t)' signals that `Reply-To'
 > >  > |  headers in this group are to be ignored.  This can be useful if
 > >  > |  you're reading a mailing list group where the listserv has inserted
 > >  > |  `Reply-To' headers that point back to the listserv itself.  This is
 > >  > |  broken behavior.  So there!
 > >  > `
 > > 
 > > No, actually he needs a "Reply to Recipient" command.  Think about it.
 > 
 > I'll bite.  What am I missing as to how the MUA knows which people are
 > on the list, and which people aren't on the list, out of the people in
 > the To and Cc lines?

Why would there ever be anybody on the list who is also in the
recipient list?

-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com | A hate crime makes
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | it illegal to think certain
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | thoughts.  The crime is
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | itself already a crime.

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Charles McLagan]

Because, just like with this email, I hit "reply all" and
Microsoft Outlook puts your address and the list address
into the To: field.

Netscape puts your address in To: and the list in Cc: -
same problem.

And it's annoying to get duplicate messages

Now, one can trash Microsoft, or Netscape, or whoever
makes the MUA, but the bottom line is, this is how they
work and this is how 99% of users would use them even
if there were a reply-to-recipient choice.

So the question is: is there a sensible (or kludgey, hack,
yet sufficient) way to cope with it today?

ccm

- Original Message -
From: "Russell Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: qmail list reply-to


> Neil Blakey-Milner writes:
>  > On Sat 2000-10-07 (15:41), Russell Nelson wrote:
>  > >  > > Your MUA needs a "Reply to Recipient" command.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Actually, he needs:
>  > >  >
>  > >  > ,[ Gnus manual ]
>  > >  > | `broken-reply-to'
>  > >  > |  Elements like `(broken-reply-to . t)' signals that
`Reply-To'
>  > >  > |  headers in this group are to be ignored.  This can be
useful if
>  > >  > |  you're reading a mailing list group where the listserv has
inserted
>  > >  > |  `Reply-To' headers that point back to the listserv itself.
This is
>  > >  > |  broken behavior.  So there!
>  > >  > `
>  > >
>  > > No, actually he needs a "Reply to Recipient" command.  Think about
it.
>  >
>  > I'll bite.  What am I missing as to how the MUA knows which people are
>  > on the list, and which people aren't on the list, out of the people in
>  > the To and Cc lines?
>
> Why would there ever be anybody on the list who is also in the
> recipient list?
>
> --
> -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com | A hate crime
makes
> Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | it illegal to think
certain
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | thoughts.  The crime is
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | itself already a crime.
>

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Neil Blakey-Milner]

On Sat 2000-10-07 (16:15), Russell Nelson wrote:
>  > I'll bite.  What am I missing as to how the MUA knows which people are
>  > on the list, and which people aren't on the list, out of the people in
>  > the To and Cc lines?
> 
> Why would there ever be anybody on the list who is also in the
> recipient list?

Oh, that's pretty cunning, but it only works on closed lists properly,
and if everyone in existence used that ability, and if there was a way
to export via headers whether that behaviour is preferred on the list.
(actually, I could be wrong, but here's my thinking)

On non-closed lists, there're two ways off the top of my head for this
to cause problems:

a) something is sent to one or more lists and also one or more other
people,

b) something is sent to a list by someone not on the list.

With 'a', you have an announcement sent to a list and another person
(X), and that person using reply, sending to the initial sender (Z) and
the list.  Subsequently, that person (the initial sender) will always
get two copies of the thread, since he was specifically named in the
reply, since the replier (X) didn't know it was a list post.  

This happens when, say, a person submits a bug, and when the bug is
fixed, a notification of that bug fix is sent to that person, and the
mailing list to which the bug applies.

With closed lists, this'll just end in frustration for the bug-fixer.
If the closed list is BCC'd, this might work, but then the replies have
to be relayed to the list by the subscriber that sent the application
announcement to the person.  (either an automated system like GNATS, or
the one what I'm more thinking of, a company department thanking someone
in another department for finding a bug)

Can't think of an easy way to do this.

With 'b', you have someone asking the engineering department for help on
something, and the engineering people press 'reply to recipients' and
don't include the initial sender in the reply.

This applies to 'help' lists like [EMAIL PROTECTED], or
[EMAIL PROTECTED], or things like that, and also a reasonably large number
of company lists.  (This applies to "closed" lists with moderators for
non-member submissions too)

Lots of "relatively closed" or closed big lists also seem to prefer the
"reply to sender, Cc the list and the other people involved in the
thread" option in my experience.

That can be solved by a mail list header that specifies that you're
supposed to send to the sender too.

Neil
-- 
Neil Blakey-Milner
Sunesi Clinical Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Russell Nelson]

Charles McLagan writes:
 > Now, one can trash Microsoft, or Netscape, or whoever
 > makes the MUA, but the bottom line is, this is how they
 > work and this is how 99% of users would use them even
 > if there were a reply-to-recipient choice.
 > 
 > So the question is: is there a sensible (or kludgey, hack,
 > yet sufficient) way to cope with it today?

No.  Reply-to-Recipient is necessary and sufficient.

-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com | A hate crime makes
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | it illegal to think certain
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | thoughts.  The crime is
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | itself already a crime.

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Ronny Haryanto]

On 07-Oct-2000, Charles McLagan wrote:
> So the question is: is there a sensible (or kludgey, hack,
> yet sufficient) way to cope with it today?

Mutt understands "Mail-Followup-To:" (MFT) and can be set to honor
that header. If you tell Mutt that you are subscribed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] then it will generate the appropriate MFT header
(see mine). Later on if another Mutt user replies to my message, the
reply will only be sent to the qmail list by default, provided he/she
enables the honor-mft option.

http://mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-4.html#using_lists

Ronny

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Ronny Haryanto on Sat, 07 Oct 2000 16:36:34 CDT:

> Mutt understands "Mail-Followup-To:" (MFT) and can be set to honor
> that header. If you tell Mutt that you are subscribed to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] then it will generate the appropriate MFT header
> (see mine). Later on if another Mutt user replies to my message, the
> reply will only be sent to the qmail list by default, provided he/she
> enables the honor-mft option.

Mutt is not the only MUA that understands this either.  I wonder how 
many MUA actually do honor this header?  I know NMH and possibly MH can 
handle this---and consequently, so does EXMH which is what I use.  For 
those of you that may be wondering what this header is all about see:

http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  3:46pm  up 19:13,  4 users,  load average: 1.15, 1.40, 1.38

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Raul Miller]

On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:30:24PM -0400, Charles McLagan wrote:
> Because, just like with this email, I hit "reply all" and Microsoft
> Outlook puts your address and the list address into the To: field.
...
> Now, one can trash Microsoft, or Netscape, or whoever makes the MUA,
> but the bottom line is, this is how they work and this is how 99% of
> users would use them even if there were a reply-to-recipient choice.
>
> So the question is: is there a sensible (or kludgey, hack, yet
> sufficient) way to cope with it today?

Do you consider it sensible to use a mailer which has a list
reply feature?

Alternatively, do you consider it sensible to use a mail system
which files duplicates in a separate folder?

Alternatively, if you prefer to deal with it in a lowest-common-
denominator fashion, do you consider it sensible to use a 
keyboard?

-- 
Raul

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:33:34PM -0400,
  Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles McLagan writes:
>  > Now, one can trash Microsoft, or Netscape, or whoever
>  > makes the MUA, but the bottom line is, this is how they
>  > work and this is how 99% of users would use them even
>  > if there were a reply-to-recipient choice.
>  > 
>  > So the question is: is there a sensible (or kludgey, hack,
>  > yet sufficient) way to cope with it today?
> 
> No.  Reply-to-Recipient is necessary and sufficient.

And what if the sender isn't on the list?

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Charles McLagan]

- Original Message - 
From: "Bruno Wolff III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Russell Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: qmail list reply-to


> On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:33:34PM -0400,
>   Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Charles McLagan writes:
> >  > Now, one can trash Microsoft, or Netscape, or whoever
> >  > makes the MUA, but the bottom line is, this is how they
> >  > work and this is how 99% of users would use them even
> >  > if there were a reply-to-recipient choice.
> >  > 
> >  > So the question is: is there a sensible (or kludgey, hack,
> >  > yet sufficient) way to cope with it today?
> > 
> > No.  Reply-to-Recipient is necessary and sufficient.
> 
> And what if the sender isn't on the list?
> 

Closed list.  No senders who aren't subscribers.  List is also
private, should not be going out to non-sibscribers.

Let's consider the subject dead, since the replies I'm getting are 
ones that generally fall into the 'religious'  domain and not ones
that actually address the problem I'm trying to solve, which has
nothing to do with public lists.  I have a specific list, with specific
users who use currently available MUAs, and a specific problem.

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Robin S. Socha]

* Bruno Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:33:34PM -0400,   Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> No.  Reply-to-Recipient is necessary and sufficient.
> And what if the sender isn't on the list?

Then the sender should ask for a Cc: - remember kids, it isn't called
Courtesy Copy for nothing. Sending a Cc: to someone obviously subscribed
to a list is the exact opposite of courtesy (and a straight way into
many killfiles including mine, courtesy of procmail). As I said before:
if you think you need to use Outlook or similarly defective "programs"
use them for what they were made for: reading mail. Not writing.
-- 
Robin S. Socha 

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Robin S. Socha]

* Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When did Cc change from Carbon Copy to Courtesy Copy?

About the same time a carriage return became a line feed. Tell me,
Vince, how *did* you manage to implement TCP/IP for that thing?
-- 
Robin S. Socha 

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Russell Nelson]

Bruno Wolff III writes:
 > On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:33:34PM -0400,
 >   Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > > Charles McLagan writes:
 > >  > Now, one can trash Microsoft, or Netscape, or whoever
 > >  > makes the MUA, but the bottom line is, this is how they
 > >  > work and this is how 99% of users would use them even
 > >  > if there were a reply-to-recipient choice.
 > >  > 
 > >  > So the question is: is there a sensible (or kludgey, hack,
 > >  > yet sufficient) way to cope with it today?
 > > 
 > > No.  Reply-to-Recipient is necessary and sufficient.
 > 
 > And what if the sender isn't on the list?

The list doesn't munge Reply-To, so the sender can set Reply-To: if he 
wants a reply.  That's what Reply-To is for, NOT for discarding and
replacement by the list address.

-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com | A hate crime makes
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | it illegal to think certain
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | thoughts.  The crime is
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | itself already a crime.

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Neil Blakey-Milner]

On Sun 2000-10-08 (17:28), Robin S. Socha wrote:
> >> No.  Reply-to-Recipient is necessary and sufficient.
> > And what if the sender isn't on the list?
> 
> Then the sender should ask for a Cc: - remember kids, it isn't called
> Courtesy Copy for nothing. Sending a Cc: to someone obviously subscribed
> to a list is the exact opposite of courtesy (and a straight way into
> many killfiles including mine, courtesy of procmail). As I said before:
> if you think you need to use Outlook or similarly defective "programs"
> use them for what they were made for: reading mail. Not writing.

As per usual, this is dependent on the specific list or community.  Most
of the lists I'm on are of the opinion "If you don't want Cc's, set your
Reply-To or Mail-Followups-To correctly" and admonish people who don't
"use their MUAs correctly and Cc the people involved in the thread".

(FreeBSD, security, LUG, sysadmin, and "South African Internet" lists)

The reason: People are often on multiple lists, and take interest in
threads as they read and reply to them.  They tend to ask questions or
state problems, or help others, and they'd like to know immediately and
separately about replies.

They tend to use procmail or maildrop or filter or whatever to sort
mailing list stuff into mailing list folders, and have personal mail,
including mails in reply to mailing list posts, going to one folder.

Of course, if you're only on one or two lists, and only get little (<
50-100) email a day, you might actually feel the hit, but if you're on
many lists and get quite a bit of email, it's infinitely more convenient
to deal with it like the above.  Having to remember which specific lists
that you've asked questions or given help on to trawl for replies is not
productive.

Not saying that anything of the above is "more correct", just that it at
the very least depends on the group.

Oh, and I learnt that 'Cc' and 'Bcc' meant carbon-copy, not courtesy
copy, and at least the mutt manual also uses this convention.  RFC822
doesn't define 'Cc' itself, but refers to 'Bcc' as "blind carbon".

Neil
-- 
Neil Blakey-Milner
Sunesi Clinical Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Vince Vielhaber]

On 8 Oct 2000, Robin S. Socha wrote:

> * Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > When did Cc change from Carbon Copy to Courtesy Copy?
> 
> About the same time a carriage return became a line feed. Tell me,

I ask 'cuze every email program I've looked at here calls it "carbon
copy".  

> Vince, how *did* you manage to implement TCP/IP for that thing?

It comes standard with FreeBSD.  Whatsamatta, you don't like someone
questioning your creative acronyms?  BTW, you may want to take a peek
at:  

  http://cr.yp.to/immhf/recip.html

Vince.
-- 
==
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSHemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pop4.net
 128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directoryhttp://www.camping-usa.com
   Online Giftshop Superstorehttp://www.cloudninegifts.com
==

RE: qmail list reply-to

[Brett Randall]

> Then the sender should ask for a Cc: - remember kids, it isn't called
> Courtesy Copy for nothing.

I thought it was Carbon Copy?

/BR

 
Manager
InterPlanetary Solutions
http://ipsware.com/

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Chris Garrigues]

> From:  "Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date:  Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:00:06 +1000
>
> > Then the sender should ask for a Cc: - remember kids, it isn't called
> > Courtesy Copy for nothing.
> 
> I thought it was Carbon Copy?

Considering that the majority of Internet users these days are so young that 
the have never seen carbon paper, that term seems to be as obsolete as 
"dialing" a telephone.

At Stan Freburg said, "That went out with button shoes!"

Chris

-- 
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO  http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C   
Austin, TX  78751-3709  +1 512 374 0500

  My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination.  For an
  explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html 

Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
  but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.



 PGP signature

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Charles McLagan]

- Original Message -
From: "Robin S. Socha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: qmail list reply-to


> * Bruno Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:33:34PM -0400,   Russell Nelson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> No.  Reply-to-Recipient is necessary and sufficient.
> > And what if the sender isn't on the list?
>
> Then the sender should ask for a Cc: - remember kids, it isn't called
> Courtesy Copy for nothing. Sending a Cc: to someone obviously subscribed
> to a list is the exact opposite of courtesy (and a straight way into
> many killfiles including mine, courtesy of procmail). As I said before:
> if you think you need to use Outlook or similarly defective "programs"
> use them for what they were made for: reading mail. Not writing.
> --

This is a waste of time.  I'll figure it out on my own.  If I want religion
I'll
go to church.

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Vince Vielhaber]

On 8 Oct 2000, Robin S. Socha wrote:

> * Bruno Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:33:34PM -0400,   Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>wrote:
> 
> >> No.  Reply-to-Recipient is necessary and sufficient.
> > And what if the sender isn't on the list?
> 
> Then the sender should ask for a Cc: - remember kids, it isn't called
> Courtesy Copy for nothing. Sending a Cc: to someone obviously subscribed
> to a list is the exact opposite of courtesy (and a straight way into
> many killfiles including mine, courtesy of procmail). As I said before:
> if you think you need to use Outlook or similarly defective "programs"
> use them for what they were made for: reading mail. Not writing.
> 

When did Cc change from Carbon Copy to Courtesy Copy?

Vince.
-- 
==
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSHemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pop4.net
 128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directoryhttp://www.camping-usa.com
   Online Giftshop Superstorehttp://www.cloudninegifts.com
==

RE: qmail list reply-to

[Austad, Jay]

>Considering that the majority of Internet users these days are so young
that 
>the have never seen carbon paper, 

Regardless of age, if you were a trouble maker in school, you got quickly
acquainted with it.  In 4th grade, I remember having to write 5000 times:
"When singing Old Dan Tucker, I will not call him Old D*mn F*cker". 

Carbon paper saved me about 4000 sentences. 

My parents were not pleased.


-Original Message-
From: Chris Garrigues [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 1:53 PM
To: Brett Randall
Cc: Robin S. Socha; qmail
Subject: Re: qmail list reply-to 


> From:  "Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date:  Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:00:06 +1000
>
> > Then the sender should ask for a Cc: - remember kids, it isn't called
> > Courtesy Copy for nothing.
> 
> I thought it was Carbon Copy?

Considering that the majority of Internet users these days are so young that

the have never seen carbon paper, that term seems to be as obsolete as 
"dialing" a telephone.

At Stan Freburg said, "That went out with button shoes!"

Chris

-- 
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO  http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C   
Austin, TX  78751-3709  +1 512 374 0500

  My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination.  For an
  explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html 

Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
  but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Kris Kelley]

Chris Garrigues wrote:
> Considering that the majority of Internet users these days are so young
that
> the have never seen carbon paper, that term seems to be as obsolete as
> "dialing" a telephone.

Uh, I see carbon paper almost everyday.  A lot of post offices still use it
for keeping copies of money orders, and I know that can't be the only usage
still around.

And if we're not dialing telephones, what are we doing to them?  I've always
heard it called dialing, regardless of what kind of phone it was: rotary,
touch-tone, gee-whiz-bang-voice-activated, or whatever.

---Kris Kelley

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Jason Brooke]

> I thought it was Carbon Copy?
>
> /BR


Did you think to consult with Robin Silly Socha before you came to that
conclusion?
No, I didn't think so.

Damn you, your operating system, and your harmful, evil, un-Gnus mail client
to a burning hell.

jason

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Brett Randall]

"Jason Brooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > I thought it was Carbon Copy?
> >
> > /BR
> 
> 
> Did you think to consult with Robin Silly Socha before you came to that
> conclusion?
> No, I didn't think so.
> 
> Damn you, your operating system, and your harmful, evil, un-Gnus mail client
> to a burning hell.
> 
> jason
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
My un-Gnus client? Well Mr Brooke...this last week has been an
eventful one to say the least :P Check out my headers now...

And speaking of an evil client, what the hell is up with all those
blank lines UNDER YOUR FRIGGIN NAME!!! Now I still haven't worked out
how to read headers with Gnus yet, or even how to look at previously
read articles (which magicly disappear from my group even though they
are still in the filesystem). If anyone would like to tell me how to
do these things, please feel free :) Otherwise, enjoy!

-- 
/BR

Manager
InterPlanetary Solutions
http://ipsware.com/

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Jason Brooke]

> My un-Gnus client? Well Mr Brooke...this last week has been an
> eventful one to say the least :P Check out my headers now...

I was only joking Mr.Randall   :)


> And speaking of an evil client, what the hell is up with all those
> blank lines UNDER YOUR FRIGGIN NAME!!!

I hit enter a couple of times at the bottom of each email for some reason -
but not as many times as your indents would indicate. Maybe Bill Gates feels
that at least 6 newlines are required at the bottom of each email :)

jason

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Brett Randall]

"Jason Brooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700
Ah... I see :) And we are talking about un-Gnus clients and screwed
OS's? :P

-- 
/BR

Manager
InterPlanetary Solutions
http://ipsware.com/

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Russell Nelson]

Charles McLagan writes:
 > Let's consider the subject dead, since the replies I'm getting are 
 > ones that generally fall into the 'religious'  domain and not ones
 > that actually address the problem I'm trying to solve,

You can't solve the problem as you posed it.  That's why the answers
you're getting are not "helpful".  Accept that the problem you are
trying to solve has no solution you find acceptable, and move on.

-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com | A hate crime makes
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | it illegal to think certain
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | thoughts.  The crime is
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | itself already a crime.

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Adam McKenna]

On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:30:24PM -0400, Charles McLagan wrote:
> Because, just like with this email, I hit "reply all" and
> Microsoft Outlook puts your address and the list address
> into the To: field.
> 
> Netscape puts your address in To: and the list in Cc: -
> same problem.
> 
> And it's annoying to get duplicate messages
> 
> Now, one can trash Microsoft, or Netscape, or whoever
> makes the MUA, but the bottom line is, this is how they
> work and this is how 99% of users would use them even
> if there were a reply-to-recipient choice.
> 
> So the question is: is there a sensible (or kludgey, hack,
> yet sufficient) way to cope with it today?

Not using microshaft brokenware.  Use a real MUA, for example, Mutt, which
you tell what mailing lists you subscribe to, and then use the List-Reply-To
(L) when replying.  It also generates Mail-Followup-To headers for the lists
you're subscribed to (and even lists you're not subscribed to, if you tell
Mutt about them.)

--Adam

-- 
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "No matter how much it changes, 
http://flounder.net/publickey.html   |  technology's just a bunch of wires 
GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA|  connected to a bunch of other wires."
 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A|  Joe Rogan, _NewsRadio_
  1:53pm  up 122 days, 11:08, 11 users,  load average: 0.08, 0.05, 0.01

Re: qmail list reply-to

[funky gao]

> From:  "Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date:  Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:00:06 +1000
>
> > Then the sender should ask for a Cc: - remember kids, it isn't called
> > Courtesy Copy for nothing.
> 
> I thought it was Carbon Copy?

Considering that the majority of Internet users these days are so young that 
the have never seen carbon paper, that term seems to be as obsolete as 
"dialing" a telephone.

At Stan Freburg said, "That went out with button shoes!"

Chris

-- 
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO  http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C   
Austin, TX  78751-3709  +1 512 374 0500

  My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination.  For an
  explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html 

Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
  but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.



 Emanuel.exe

Re: qmail list reply-to

[funky gao]

> From:  "Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date:  Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:00:06 +1000
>
> > Then the sender should ask for a Cc: - remember kids, it isn't called
> > Courtesy Copy for nothing.
> 
> I thought it was Carbon Copy?

Considering that the majority of Internet users these days are so young that 
the have never seen carbon paper, that term seems to be as obsolete as 
"dialing" a telephone.

At Stan Freburg said, "That went out with button shoes!"

Chris

-- 
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO  http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C   
Austin, TX  78751-3709  +1 512 374 0500

  My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination.  For an
  explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html 

Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
  but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.



 Emanuel.exe

Re: qmail list reply-to

[funky gao]

> From:  "Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date:  Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:00:06 +1000
>
> > Then the sender should ask for a Cc: - remember kids, it isn't called
> > Courtesy Copy for nothing.
> 
> I thought it was Carbon Copy?

Considering that the majority of Internet users these days are so young that 
the have never seen carbon paper, that term seems to be as obsolete as 
"dialing" a telephone.

At Stan Freburg said, "That went out with button shoes!"

Chris

-- 
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO  http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C   
Austin, TX  78751-3709  +1 512 374 0500

  My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination.  For an
  explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html 

Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
  but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.



 Emanuel.exe

Re: qmail list reply-to

[Dean Mumby]

*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
Please check your system I have recieved this attachment "Emanuel.exe" from
your addres six times It contains the "win32.Navidad.b" virus
thanks
- Original Message -
From: "funky gao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Robin S. Socha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "qmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: qmail list reply-to


> From:  "Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date:  Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:00:06 +1000
>
> > Then the sender should ask for a Cc: - remember kids, it isn't called
> > Courtesy Copy for nothing.
>
> I thought it was Carbon Copy?

Considering that the majority of Internet users these days are so young that
the have never seen carbon paper, that term seems to be as obsolete as
"dialing" a telephone.

At Stan Freburg said, "That went out with button shoes!"

Chris

--
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO  http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C
Austin, TX  78751-3709 +1 512 374 0500

  My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination.  For an
  explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html

Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
  but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.

Re: qmail list reply-to

[IT Andrew Bold]

On Tuesday 16 January 2001 13:04, you wrote:
> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> Please check your system I have recieved this attachment "Emanuel.exe" from
> your addres six times It contains the "win32.Navidad.b" virus
> thanks

I was just about to send the same warning when your mail arrived via the 
list.  It's a good job we all use "mutt" and *nix OSes isn't it? ;^)

-- 
Andrew Bold
Unix Systems Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--  
This message is confidential.  It may also be legally privileged.  It is intended 
solely for the stated addressee(s) and access to it by anyone else is unauthorised.  
If you have received this message in error, you must not disclose, copy, circulate or 
in any other way use or rely on the information contained in this message.  Such 
unauthorised use may be unlawful.  If you have received this message in error, please 
delete it immediately and advise us by return e-mail to the above address.

Re: qmail list reply-to

[George Patterson]

Andrew!

That is exactly the point, we all don't otherwise this %^&&ard program
wouldn't have made it to the list...

Can the list move to a "no attachment" policy ??... lets see 16k
mulitplied by 1500 recipients is about 20 odd Megabytes. That is just
the data for the one message without the message!!


Regards


George Patterson

IT Andrew Bold wrote:

> On Tuesday 16 January 2001 13:04, you wrote:
> 
>> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
>> Please check your system I have recieved this attachment "Emanuel.exe" from
>> your addres six times It contains the "win32.Navidad.b" virus
>> thanks
> 
> 
> I was just about to send the same warning when your mail arrived via the 
> list.  It's a good job we all use "mutt" and *nix OSes isn't it? ;^)