Re: Why is list reply set to user? (Vidiot)
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 09:08:02PM -0500, Vidiot wrote: [...] Without the Reply-To, it is not "easy" to reply to one or the other. The easy is to hit r) and one gets the author. To get the group, I have to hit t)o before mailing and change the To: to the list. At least I have an RHL alias to speed that up. The main point is that I have to go out of the way to reply to the mail list, without also replying to the author. I do not consider that easy. Of course, if I do my usual, I edit and send. Oops, that means it went to the wrong place. [...] Just an aside: As you're already using a text based mail program, you could for example consider using mutt instead of elm. mutt has in fact three reply commands, giving me a very fine grained control over where I'm replying to: r - replies to author (N.B.: This functionality is destroyed by Reply-To list!) g - replies to group, i.e. all (list + author) L - replies to list only I made the transition from elm to mutt myself about three years ago (albeit for other reasons than the above - that was an added bonus) and never looked back. Regards, Thomas -- "Look, Ma, no obsolete quotes and plain text only!" Thomas Ribbrock | http://www.bigfoot.com/~kaytan | ICQ#: 15839919 "You have to live on the edge of reality - to make your dreams come true!" ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user? (Vidiot)
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Gustav Schaffter spewed into the bitstream: GSChuck, GS GSWith all due respect... GS GSSome of us, me included, are forced to use Win-NT in our proffesional GStime. As such, procmail is not an option during daytime. As such, GS"brain-dead" email clients such as NetScape and others do become GSsomething one has to live with, like it or not. GS GSI use procmail at home. But I can't do that at work. Understood... ...uhm... get a new job? :-) :-) :-) (please note the 3 smilies... I *AM* joking) -- Chuck Mead, CTO, LinuxMall.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Public Key Available: http://pgp.ai.mit.edu/ ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user? (Vidiot)
:-) Gustav Chuck Mead wrote: snip ..uhm... get a new job? :-) :-) :-) (please note the 3 smilies... I *AM* joking) -- Chuck Mead, CTO, LinuxMall.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Public Key Available: http://pgp.ai.mit.edu/ -- pgp = Pretty Good Privacy. To get my public pgp key, send an e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my web site at http://www.schaffter.com ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user? (Vidiot)
Chuck, With all due respect... Some of us, me included, are forced to use Win-NT in our proffesional time. As such, procmail is not an option during daytime. As such, "brain-dead" email clients such as NetScape and others do become something one has to live with, like it or not. I use procmail at home. But I can't do that at work. Regards Gustav Chuck Mead wrote: On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 09:08:02PM -0500, Vidiot was heard to say: For me, it is just easier to have them in my main mailbox and go through them sequentially. No it's not. You merely *think* it's easier. Don't let fear of procmail put you in this situation... :-) Disclaimer: I am not trying to start a flame war... you may certainly handle your email in any way you choose but I would encourage you to learn how to use procmail as it *WILL* make your life easier... I get ~1000 messages a day and could not survive without it... -- Chuck Mead, CTO, LinuxMall.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Public Key Available: http://pgp.ai.mit.edu/ -- pgp = Pretty Good Privacy. To get my public pgp key, send an e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my web site at http://www.schaffter.com ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user? (Vidiot)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, Chuck Mead wrote: ... I get ~1000 messages a day and could not survive without it... I think you need more staff, dude. :-) Just kidding. I get around that many too. Mostly output from cron jobs and web stats, etc. Procmail is *great* for making sure I never have to even look at it. ;-) - -- LINUX: The choice of a GNU generation. -- Steve Frampton[EMAIL PROTECTED] interQ (Japan), Inc. Systems Administrator/Software Developer http://www.interq.or.jp/ GNU Privacy Guard ID: D055EBC5 (see http://www.gnupg.org for details) GNU-PG Fingerprint: EEFB F03D 29B6 07E8 AF73 EF6A 9A72 F1F5 D055 EBC5 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (SunOS) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE5jmW0mnLx9dBV68URAud3AJ0TAFWL0aagDt57hH70rzd91Dmi/gCfS+hO ZSSP32nTrZmC2dqVrXrAO9A= =eUlY -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user? (Vidiot)
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 09:13:47AM +0200, Gustav Schaffter wrote:
: Some of us, me included, are forced to use Win-NT in our proffesional
: time. As such, procmail is not an option during daytime. As such,
: "brain-dead" email clients such as NetScape and others do become
: something one has to live with, like it or not.
Um, so use Netscrape's filtering features then...
I can't think of a mailer that either doesn't work on systems where you
would have procmail, or have its own filtering features.
--
Jason Costomiris| Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user? (Vidiot)
On 07 Aug 2000 03:13 Gustav Schaffter wrote: Chuck, With all due respect... Some of us, me included, are forced to use Win-NT in our proffesional time. As such, procmail is not an option during daytime. As such, "brain-dead" email clients such as NetScape and others do become something one has to live with, like it or not. I use procmail at home. But I can't do that at work. Netscape's filters aren't quite as powerful as procmail, but they can filter based on arbitrary header fields like X-Loop. Tony -- Anthony E. Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~agreene/ PGP Key: 0x6C94239D/7B3D BD7D 7D91 1B44 BA26 C484 A42A 60DD 6C94 239D Linux. The choice of a GNU Generation. http://www.linux.org/ ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user? (Vidiot)
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 09:08:02PM -0500, Vidiot was heard to say: For me, it is just easier to have them in my main mailbox and go through them sequentially. No it's not. You merely *think* it's easier. Don't let fear of procmail put you in this situation... :-) Disclaimer: I am not trying to start a flame war... you may certainly handle your email in any way you choose but I would encourage you to learn how to use procmail as it *WILL* make your life easier... I get ~1000 messages a day and could not survive without it... -- Chuck Mead, CTO, LinuxMall.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Public Key Available: http://pgp.ai.mit.edu/ ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Why is list reply set to user?
It is real annoying that the reply of messages sent to the list is set to the poster of the message. Too many times I have told it to send the message, forgetting to change the To: line. This is the ONLY list that I am subscribed to that has this WRONG (IMHO). Can we please get it changed? MB -- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bart: Hey, why is it destroying other toys? Lisa: They must have programmed it to eliminate the competition. Bart: You mean like Microsoft? Lisa: Exactly. [The Simpsons - 12/18/99] Visit - URL:http://www.vidiot.com/ (Your link to Star Trek and UPN) ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user?
Does your email client program have a Reply-All operation? The problem with replies going to the list is that it takes away the option of replying solely to the poster. A reply-all will go to the poster and the list. This is the correct behavior. Kambiz Vidiot wrote: It is real annoying that the reply of messages sent to the list is set to the poster of the message. Too many times I have told it to send the message, forgetting to change the To: line. This is the ONLY list that I am subscribed to that has this WRONG (IMHO). Can we please get it changed? -- \o__O o Kambiz Aghaiepour, RHCE -Phone: (919) 524-7423 o o \_ /|\ -= Red Hat, Inc. =- |\| Pager: (800) 946-4646 //\ //\ |\ |\ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | Pager Pin #: 1412622 // // / / |/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.redhat.com |\ || ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
RE: Why is list reply set to user?
Kambiz is right. That's the way it's supposed to work (but I sorta liked it the old way too) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kambiz Aghaiepour Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 11:14 AM To: Vidiot Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why is list reply set to user? Does your email client program have a Reply-All operation? The problem with replies going to the list is that it takes away the option of replying solely to the poster. A reply-all will go to the poster and the list. This is the correct behavior. Kambiz Vidiot wrote: It is real annoying that the reply of messages sent to the list is set to the poster of the message. Too many times I have told it to send the message, forgetting to change the To: line. This is the ONLY list that I am subscribed to that has this WRONG (IMHO). Can we please get it changed? -- \o__O o Kambiz Aghaiepour, RHCE -Phone: (919) 524-7423 o o \_ /|\ -= Red Hat, Inc. =- |\| Pager: (800) 946-4646 //\ //\ |\ |\ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | Pager Pin #: 1412622 // // / / |/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.redhat.com |\ || ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user?
Kambiz is right. That's the way it's supposed to work (but I sorta liked it the old way too) NO, that is NOT the way it is supposed to work. A prime example is what happened with Kambiz's reply and my reply to you. What happened? You get TWO copies of the e-mail. The last thing I need is MORE e-mail in my mail box. As I mentioned, this is the ONLY list that I am on that replies to the sender and not the list. Sure, I can hit g)roup reply in elm, but as you can see, you end up with two pieces of e-mail, when one is all that is really needed, or necessary. MB -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kambiz Aghaiepour Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 11:14 AM To: Vidiot Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why is list reply set to user? Does your email client program have a Reply-All operation? The problem with replies going to the list is that it takes away the option of replying solely to the poster. A reply-all will go to the poster and the list. This is the correct behavior. Kambiz Vidiot wrote: It is real annoying that the reply of messages sent to the list is set to the poster of the message. Too many times I have told it to send the message, forgetting to change the To: line. This is the ONLY list that I am subscribed to that has this WRONG (IMHO). Can we please get it changed? -- \o__O o Kambiz Aghaiepour, RHCE -Phone: (919) 524-7423 o o \_ /|\ -= Red Hat, Inc. =- |\| Pager: (800) 946-4646 //\ //\ |\ |\ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | Pager Pin #: 1412622 // // / / |/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.redhat.com |\ || ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bart: Hey, why is it destroying other toys? Lisa: They must have programmed it to eliminate the competition. Bart: You mean like Microsoft? Lisa: Exactly. [The Simpsons - 12/18/99] Visit - URL:http://www.vidiot.com/ (Your link to Star Trek and UPN) ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user?
Vidiot wrote:
Kambiz is right. That's the way it's supposed to work (but I sorta
liked it the old way too)
NO, that is NOT the way it is supposed to work. A prime example is
what happened with Kambiz's reply and my reply to you. What happened?
You get TWO copies of the e-mail. The last thing I need is MORE e-mail
in my mail box.
As I mentioned, this is the ONLY list that I am on that replies to the
sender and not the list.
Sure, I can hit g)roup reply in elm, but as you can see, you end up with two
pieces of e-mail, when one is all that is really needed, or necessary.
At first I did not understand this thread. Has the list stopped adding the
Reply to header? I added the procmail recipe below since the list server would
not add one if it was set in the MUA. Therefore I did not see any change in
behavior. Here is my recipe for redhat-list messages.
# Add a Reply-To to redhat-list messages and send to the proper mailbox
:0
* ^X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{
:0 f
| formail -A 'Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
:0:
Mail-lists/redhat-list
}
If the list has stopped setting the reply to, I would say this is not correct
behavior.
Bret
___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user?
Kambiz is right. That's the way it's supposed to work (but I sorta liked it the old way too) NO, that is NOT the way it is supposed to work. A prime example is what happened with Kambiz's reply and my reply to you. What happened? You get TWO copies of the e-mail. The last thing I need is MORE e-mail in my mail box. As I mentioned, this is the ONLY list that I am on that replies to the sender and not the list. Sure, I can hit g)roup reply in elm, but as you can see, you end up with two pieces of e-mail, when one is all that is really needed, or necessary. MB IMHO, it also defeats the purpose of the list to reply to just one person, when the response could benefit other people or contribute to the discussion. In the small number of cases where you have an answer that is specific to just the sender, then send it to just that one person. Just my opinion. - Bob Glover ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user?
The real problem here is that it *discourages* replying to the list. I believe the purpose of this list is to *share* our experiences. It is also a change form the old behaviour (my main objection). Funny, I'm on your side on this one Vidiot :) However, I was out of line last time with my answer. I will happily write procmail recipes to fix my own reply-to header, take aout [RHL] in the subject line, whatever. charles On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Kambiz Aghaiepour wrote: Does your email client program have a Reply-All operation? The problem with replies going to the list is that it takes away the option of replying solely to the poster. A reply-all will go to the poster and the list. This is the correct behavior. Kambiz Vidiot wrote: It is real annoying that the reply of messages sent to the list is set to the poster of the message. Too many times I have told it to send the message, forgetting to change the To: line. This is the ONLY list that I am subscribed to that has this WRONG (IMHO). Can we please get it changed? ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Why is list reply set to user? (Vidiot)
Vidiot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is real annoying that the reply of messages sent to the list is set to the poster of the message. Too many times I have told it to send the message, forgetting to change the To: line. This is the ONLY list that I am subscribed to that has this WRONG (IMHO). far too many newbie list users and administrators set up lists so that replies go back to the list. This URL states quite clearly and coherently why this is a bad idea. Personally, I have acquired too much scar tissue from misbehaving vacation programs replying to themselves with a reply goes back to the list. It's a real nasty death spiral that takes out mail servers on a regular basis. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user?
I happen to agree with Mike, for redhat-list, at least. Setting the reply to the sender is what I do with some lists to try to reduce the amount of traffic that list members must deal with. However, in this particular forum, I sense that more conversation is desired, not less. | NO, that is NOT the way it is supposed to work. A prime example is | what happened with Kambiz's reply and my reply to you. What happened? | You get TWO copies of the e-mail. The last thing I need is MORE e-mail | in my mail box. Actually, for the sissies like me who filter, the one addressed to the list goes into the file for that list, and the one addressed to me lands in my main inbox where I will notice it soonest. Sure, I see the message twice, but things that need my attention don't have to wait for me to wade through list mail, and I still get to see the message in the context of discussion. The macho guys who can keep thousands of messages all mentally threaded have my abiding respect. Romain Kang Disclaimer: I speak for myself alone, [EMAIL PROTECTED]except when indicated otherwise. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user?
Sure, I can hit g)roup reply in elm, but as you can see, you end up with two pieces of e-mail, when one is all that is really needed, or necessary. MB yet another magic procmail recipe (strait form the man page) for getting rid of duplicate email messages. -adam # anti-dupe filter :0 Whc: msgid.lock | formail -D 8192 msgid.cache :0 a: duplicates ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user?
On Fri, 04 Aug 2000, you wrote: Sure, I can hit g)roup reply in elm, but as you can see, you end up with two pieces of e-mail, when one is all that is really needed, or necessary. MB yet another magic procmail recipe (strait form the man page) for getting rid of duplicate email messages. Yes, BUT!!! NOT EVERYONE IS RUNNING A FRIGGIN' MAIL SERVER Some of us just use a standard POP3/SMTP mail client! Why should EVERYONE have to run Procmail??? John ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user? (Vidiot)
far too many newbie list users and administrators set up lists so that replies go back to the list. This URL states quite clearly and coherently why this is a bad idea. Personally, I have acquired too much scar tissue from misbehaving vacation programs replying to themselves with a reply goes back to the list. It's a real nasty death spiral that takes out mail servers on a regular basis. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html I strongly disagree with this person. I run two mail lists from my server and do not have trouble with vacation mail from my list members. I have more problems from addresses that go dead, than bounced vacation mail. Plus, if I changed the list so that Reply-To was removed, or set to the poster, I would get my nuts cut off by the users. The whole reason for the lists is to communicate between the members. I quote the following from his document: "Any reasonable, modern mailer provides this feature. I prefer the Elm mailer. It has separate ``r)eply'' and ``g)roup-reply'' commands. If I want to reply to the author of a message, I strike the ``r'' key. If I want to send a reply to the entire list, I hit ``g'' instead. Piece 'o cake." I too use elm, exclusively. The "g" key causes a problem, which he fails to mention, in that TWO pieces of e-mail is sent out, one to the list and one to the author. Doesn't seem unreasonable, except that the author will get TWO copies of the e-mail. It is bad enough that I get 300 pieces of e-mail a day. I don't need to wade through two copies, especially if they don't arrive together. I did a g)roup reply to this, so you will see TWO copies of it in your mail box. Here is Chip's summary and my responses: 1) It violates the principle of minimal munging. It is still minimal munging. The Reply-To is set to where the message came from, in this case the mail list. 2) It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer. It certainly does, as it allows me to hit r) and reply back to the group. 3) It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will direct a response. Bull crap. 4) It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer. It has never reduced my functionality. 5) It removes important information, which can make it impossible to get back to the message sender. More bull crap. Since Chris loves the elm mailer, like me, he must know about the h) key. That will display all of the header information so that he can cut the author's address into a X-buffer. I've yet to not be able to find the author's e-mail address in all of the headers, from either the lists that I send out, or in the other lists that I subscribe to. The From: header is normally still there and it contains the author's address. I've yet to be able to send a personal reply to an author. 6) It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to coddle those running brain-dead software. I run the same elm software that he does and I don't have a problem with Reply-To set to the mail list. 7) It violates the principle of least work because complicates the procedure for replying to messages. It never has for me. 8) It violates the principle of least surprise because it changes the way a mailer works. Sorry, but I am caught by surprise with the RedHat list because I am so used to hitting r) and having the response go to the mail list. Now I hit the r), type the message, hit s) to send it and then go "Oh Shit!" because it went to the author and not the list. 9) It violates the principle of least damage, and it encourages a failure mode that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse. Bull crap. See #8. After I've said "Oh Shit!", I have to reenter the reply in order to send it to the list, or if it is a long one, e-mail the author and ask for it to be sent back to me. I don't have the system keep a copy of everything I send. I'd spend way too muich time deleting copies I don't want. I know before I send it if I want a copy or not, and if so, I CC myself. Yes, I've seen messages posted to lists that were meant to be sent only to the author, but those are few and far between. And yes, I've done it. 10) Your subscribers don't want you to do it. Or, at least the ones who have bothered to read the docs for their mailer don't want you to do it. Speak for yourself. I've had ZERO list members request a change to a reply to the author. As I've mentioned, Chris fails to mention the double mailing when using g)roup reply. To me that is a real problem that is solved by having the reply sent to the group. I do not like receiving double messages when the problem goes away by using a reply to the mail list. I'm sorry, but
Re: Why is list reply set to user? (Vidiot)
On Fri, 04 Aug 2000, you wrote: As I've mentioned, Chris fails to mention the double mailing when using g)roup reply. To me that is a real problem that is solved by having the reply sent to the group. I do not like receiving double messages when the problem goes away by using a reply to the mail list. I'm sorry, but Chris' arguments do not hold water with me and cause me more problems than it is worth. I guess Chris doesn't mind eating up net bandwidth sending two messages out over the net, or eating up disk space on the user's computer by sending the poor person two copies of an e-mail that should, by all rights, be a single copy. I vote for the Reply-To being returned to the mail list, pointing to the mail list. Further, it DISCOURAGES discussion, by removing replies from the list by default. This is a TWO-WAY list, not an "announce-only" list. If that were the case, or if it were moderated I could see having the "reply-to" set to the poster, or to the moderator. However, as I stated, that is NOT the case. This is a WIDE-OPEN list, not an announce list. This list is supposed to be for DISCUSSION, not for one-way traffic. Sure it generates a lot of traffic, but if you can't handle the volume, get the hell off the list! I, too, request "Reply-To" being set to the list address. It's annoying as hell when you have to go out of your way to reply ONLY to the list! ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user? (Vidiot)
Vidiot wrote: far too many newbie list users and administrators set up lists so that replies go back to the list. This URL states quite clearly and coherently why this is a bad idea. Personally, I have acquired too much scar tissue from misbehaving vacation programs replying to themselves with a reply goes back to the list. It's a real nasty death spiral that takes out mail servers on a regular basis. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html I strongly disagree with this person. I run two mail lists from my server and do not have trouble with vacation mail from my list members. I have more problems from addresses that go dead, than bounced vacation mail. Plus, if I changed the list so that Reply-To was removed, or set to the poster, I would get my nuts cut off by the users. The whole reason for the lists is to communicate between the members. then I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm also sorry to hear that you have clueless users on your mailing lists... I quote the following from his document: "Any reasonable, modern mailer provides this feature. I prefer the Elm mailer. It has separate ``r)eply'' and ``g)roup-reply'' commands. If I want to reply to the author of a message, I strike the ``r'' key. If I want to send a reply to the entire list, I hit ``g'' instead. Piece 'o cake." I too use elm, exclusively. The "g" key causes a problem, which he fails to mention, in that TWO pieces of e-mail is sent out, one to the list and one to the author. Doesn't seem unreasonable, except that the author will get TWO copies of the e-mail. It is bad enough that I get 300 pieces of e-mail a day. I don't need to wade through two copies, especially if they don't arrive together. I did a g)roup reply to this, so you will see TWO copies of it in your mail box. sort of. one went to the list digest and the other to me. my filtering puts the digest into another mailbox that I will read later. The one in my main inbox is receiving more immediate attention. it doesn't bother me because it matches my expectations of how mail lists work. I also expect that any news postings may trigger duel target messages(i.e. one to the newsgroup and one to me). proper use of filtering tools such as procmail will help make the load manageable. Trying to work with 300 plus messages a day without filtering shows either cluelessness or an enjoyment of self-inflicted pain. Here is Chip's summary and my responses: 1) It violates the principle of minimal munging. It is still minimal munging. The Reply-To is set to where the message came from, in this case the mail list. this is an arguable point. 2) It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer. It certainly does, as it allows me to hit r) and reply back to the group. 3) It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will direct a response. Bull crap. au contrair. point 2 and 3 are opposite sides of the same coin. Reply-to prevents one from easily replying directly to another user. Without reply-to, one can reply either way to list or to user very easily. 4) It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer. It has never reduced my functionality. his point here further emphasizes details of the above points. If reply-to is turned on, I cannot use simple mailer commands to direct the message to user or to mailing list. I must instead manually seek out the address from the body of the message and cut then paste the address. In my world, this means I've lost functionality. I need to manually do what the mailer formerly did for me. 5) It removes important information, which can make it impossible to get back to the message sender. More bull crap. Since Chris loves the elm mailer, like me, he must know about the h) key. That will display all of the header information so that he can cut the author's address into a X-buffer. I've yet to not be able to find the author's e-mail address in all of the headers, from either the lists that I send out, or in the other lists that I subscribe to. The From: header is normally still there and it contains the author's address. I've yet to be able to send a personal reply to an author. Many of the Windows-based user agents and even some of the Linux ones lose information about the message sender and make it well-nigh impossible to get back the original senders information. 6) It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to coddle those running brain-dead software. I run the same elm software that he does and I don't have a problem with Reply-To set to the mail list. Shakespeare says it best: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." 8) It violates the principle of least surprise
Re: Why is list reply set to user?
Sure, I can hit g)roup reply in elm, but as you can see, you end up with two pieces of e-mail, when one is all that is really needed, or necessary. MB yet another magic procmail recipe (strait form the man page) for getting rid of duplicate email messages. -adam # anti-dupe filter :0 Whc: msgid.lock | formail -D 8192 msgid.cache :0 a: duplicates And yet another notice that not everyone uses procmail, can use procmail or even wants to use proc mail. NOTE: The reply was already set to go to the mail list :-) MB -- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bart: Hey, why is it destroying other toys? Lisa: They must have programmed it to eliminate the competition. Bart: You mean like Microsoft? Lisa: Exactly. [The Simpsons - 12/18/99] Visit - URL:http://www.vidiot.com/ (Your link to Star Trek and UPN) ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Why is list reply set to user? (Vidiot)
Eric responded: You've probably noticed that Reply-To has been added. Vidiot wrote: then I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm also sorry to hear that you have clueless users on your mailing lists... Yep, I agree that were are going to disagree. From my side of the fence, we aren't clueless :-) proper use of filtering tools such as procmail will help make the load manageable. Trying to work with 300 plus messages a day without filtering shows either cluelessness or an enjoyment of self-inflicted pain. I don't have any pain at all. I pretty much read the messages in sequence. I skip many based upon the subject line. If they were shoved into different folders, I'd have to keep jumping around into the folders. For me, it is just easier to have them in my main mailbox and go through them sequentially. au contrair. point 2 and 3 are opposite sides of the same coin. Reply-to prevents one from easily replying directly to another user. Without reply-to, one can reply either way to list or to user very easily. Without the Reply-To, it is not "easy" to reply to one or the other. The easy is to hit r) and one gets the author. To get the group, I have to hit t)o before mailing and change the To: to the list. At least I have an RHL alias to speed that up. The main point is that I have to go out of the way to reply to the mail list, without also replying to the author. I do not consider that easy. Of course, if I do my usual, I edit and send. Oops, that means it went to the wrong place. 4) It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer. It has never reduced my functionality. his point here further emphasizes details of the above points. If reply-to is turned on, I cannot use simple mailer commands to direct the message to user or to mailing list. I must instead manually seek out the address from the body of the message and cut then paste the address. In my world, this means I've lost functionality. I need to manually do what the mailer formerly did for me. It is true. But, as I point out, I have to manually intervine in order to send the reply to ONLY the list. The two options either send to the list or send to the list AND the author. There is no LIST ONLY REPLY option. 5) It removes important information, which can make it impossible to get back to the message sender. More bull crap. Since Chris loves the elm mailer, like me, he must know about the h) key. That will display all of the header information so that he can cut the author's address into a X-buffer. I've yet to not be able to find the author's e-mail address in all of the headers, from either the lists that I send out, or in the other lists that I subscribe to. The From: header is normally still there and it contains the author's address. I've yet to be able to send a personal reply to an author. Many of the Windows-based user agents and even some of the Linux ones lose information about the message sender and make it well-nigh impossible to get back the original senders information. Well, I've never lost it on any of the Unix platforms I've been one. assume your users are human. Don't set them up to fail. Everything has gone just fine so far. like I said at the beginning, we will have to agree to disagree. I have hard-won experience showing me the wisdom of Chris's arguments, many long-term (decade+) users agree that reply to munging is considered harmful. As I understand it, the Reply-To is supposed to be set to where you want the reply sent to. I don't consider that munging. Setting it to the list, as it is now, or setting it to the author, would both be correct and would not be "munging." Yep, we disagree. MB -- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bart: Hey, why is it destroying other toys? Lisa: They must have programmed it to eliminate the competition. Bart: You mean like Microsoft? Lisa: Exactly. [The Simpsons - 12/18/99] Visit - URL:http://www.vidiot.com/ (Your link to Star Trek and UPN) ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
RE: [RHL] Why is list reply set to user?
I agree, some of the features that makes it easy to sort e-mail *ESPECIALLY* if you are on several lists or are NOT reading the list on a linux-based machine. For example, I read the list *mostly* on my office PowerMac to find bugs and security holes that affect a linux server in my department. In other words, I'm a human mail filter that annotates and sorts about 300+ messages a day. Hence, I cannot run procmail. As for whether the reply goes to the list or the individual, I think it seems to be mail client dependent. My Outlook 2000 on my home laptop, the reply goes direct to the list. Even on the mailing lists that I maintain, I set the reply to point to the mailing list and always use a list title in [brackets]. - Michael A. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Vidiot Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 8:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why is list reply set to user? Sure, I can hit g)roup reply in elm, but as you can see, you end up with two pieces of e-mail, when one is all that is really needed, or necessary. MB yet another magic procmail recipe (straight form the man page) for getting rid of duplicate email messages. -adam # anti-dupe filter :0 Whc: msgid.lock | formail -D 8192 msgid.cache :0 a: duplicates And yet another notice that not everyone uses procmail, can use procmail or even wants to use proc mail. NOTE: The reply was already set to go to the mail list :-) MB -- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bart: Hey, why is it destroying other toys? Lisa: They must have programmed it to eliminate the competition. Bart: You mean like Microsoft? Lisa: Exactly. [The Simpsons - 12/18/99] Visit - URL:http://www.vidiot.com/ (Your link to Star Trek and UPN) ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
