Why folder templates are dangerous (was Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers)
Hello Dave, On Wednesday, March 27, 2002 at 17:39:28 -0500, Dave Goodman [DG] wrote concerning 'Clarification requested on list reply headers': ... I've seen Marck's warnings about using folder templates, along with comments from several others. What I have not seen is an explanation why this is a Bad Idea. Would someone educate this newbie? :) This is a quote from Marck a few months ago (a very good explanation why folder templates are dangerous): ===8Start of quote== stock lecture I have a pet hate in TB. That pet hate is named Folder Templates. In 150 folders I have two and only two that have folder templates. They are for two specific lists which don't set the reply address properly. There is nothing else for which folder templates can be used that can't be covered and even improved upon using Address Book templates. There are dangers in using Folder Templates that are not there when you use AB templates. The dangers are all complacency based and are at their worst in templates which use the %TO= macro. If, at the instant you start a new message you happen to be focused on the wrong folder, the message gets given the wrong address. This happens when you click a mailto without changing folders. The results vary from embarrassing to excruciating depending upon the content of the misdirected mail. BTW - another mistake in such templates is to use the construct %TO=[EMAIL PROTECTED] without a %TO='' before it. So any pre-existing addresses are retained. Back to the lecture: every time I say this, someone takes exception to something I've said with comments like 'danger' is a bit harsh or I've used Folder templates for ages and it's never gone wrong for me. Here's a fact for you: it goes wrong. That's why I'm writing this message yet again. It works exactly as designed and that design has a fundamental flaw. The flaw is that it places too much responsibility on the user to make sure that the addresses given on a new message are those intended. With address book templates, there is never a mistake of this kind. Replies are perfectly directed. New messages are a bit trickier. Instead of clicking to the folder then clicking for a new message, you have to click to the right of the new message button and select the list address from the favourites (having denoted that the address *is* a favourite in the address book). /stock lecture ===8==End of quote== -- Best regards, David ** .::: ::..: ::.::. :..:: This tag-line is in Braille. ** [TB! 1.60] [Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2] [Running on a Celeron 800@1176 256 Mb RAM] Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why folder templates are dangerous (was Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers)
BATTERS, Geez people! Aren't we paying attention anymore ??? When i cross a green light i still keep looking around me if any traffic is there. When you write email check and maybe double check what you are doing if your mails are sensitive. Heck, never use email for sensitive subjects i might say ;-)) I've seen Marck's warnings about using folder templates, along with comments from several others. What I have not seen is an explanation why this is a Bad Idea. Cheers Ray Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why folder templates are dangerous (was Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers)
Thursday, March 28, 2002, 12:15:54 PM, David van Zuijlekom wrote: This is a quote from Marck a few months ago (a very good explanation why folder templates are dangerous): --- I'm guilty of this. However, I have fifty-odd folders, most of which I've set with custom properties and templates. Is there a quick way that I can clear these templates and properties? TIA, -- Geoff Lane Cornwall, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Using The Bat! v1.60 on Windows NT 4.0 Build 1381 Service Pack 6 WinAmp currently playing Dire Straits - So Far Away Word Happens Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why folder templates are dangerous (was Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers)
Hello David, On Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 04:15:54 AM -0700, you wrote the following in regards to Why folder templates are dangerous (was Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers): I've seen Marck's warnings about using folder templates, along with comments from several others. What I have not seen is an explanation why this is a Bad Idea. Would someone educate this newbie? :) This is a quote from Marck a few months ago (a very good explanation why folder templates are dangerous): I still contend the problem is TB's because she forces either Folder Level (presuming a Folder Template is in use) or Account Level Templates on MailTo's. A MailTo: has specific instructions with reference to whom it is addressed and in some cases what the Subject heading should be and what is included within the Body. TB should do nothing but carry out the instructions within that MailTo: and simply limit her influence to providing the From: Address based on the Account used. Folder Templates are supposed to be a feature of TB, and not something that has the potential to cause embarrassment or even more serious consequences. I agree with Marck that AB Level Templates has more to offer a User, but nevertheless my suggestion is to either get rid of Folder Templates completely, or resolve the problem by addressing the improper handling of MailTo's. Nick -- PGP Public Key: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=PGPKey Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why folder templates are dangerous (was Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers)
Hello William, On Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 12:26:53 PM -0700, you wrote the following in regards to Why folder templates are dangerous (was Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers): NA she She? Absolutely! Something as refined yet temperamental as The Bat must be given the appropriate gender. In any case, look at TB's Icon... Can't you tell it' a Female Bat? ;o) Nick -- PGP Public Key: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=PGPKey Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[2]: Why folder templates are dangerous (was Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers)
Hello Nick Thank you for your email dated Thursday, March 28, 2002, 8:14:45 PM, in which you wrote: NA she She? -- Regards William PGP spoken here - email me for my Public Key mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flying with The Bat! 1.60 Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:47:13 -0500, Etm [E] wrote these comments: ... E I have noticed the problem. My reply to all placed you in To E position, TBUDL in CC position (which this mailing list will *not* E accept), and so I will alter the addresses to send. I was embarrassed E recently to find a private reply post with Hugs hit a mailing list. E I have paid careful attention since then to what is occurring. The To E addressee was the private party AT THE DANG MAILING LIST address and E TB had dropped his private address totally. I have seen it happen E again and don't like the address being changed to include the E poster's name appended to the list address. It's just plain strange. E Surely, it is not intentional and has to be a bug. Not a bug and you can disable it on a per account basis. Account Properties/Templates/Reply/'Do Not use From Name for Reply-to address'. - -- Allie C Martin (_ List Moderator and fellow end user __) PGPKey - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= TB! v1.60 Windows XP 5.1.2600 __ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6-2 (MingW32) iEYEARECAAYFAjyhrQ4ACgkQV8nrYCsHF+LlcACggyFqqgusT2hfZ9xNn/xfqHMq uzYAoLHOXw143eVxZCuDbg4Q90/Atea1 =2vrX -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hail Dierk On 27 March 2002 at 08:54:24 +0100 (which was 07:54 where I live) Dierk Haasis wrote and made these points As to whether or not it messes up replying to these old-school lists, I've always found that a carefully crafted set of folder templates gets round the problem. DH Marck, folder templates? From you? Notice the get out clause 'carefully crafted'. - -- TTFN, ___ David | SecureBat! 1.54 B43/iKey1000 | E-mailaholics | _| Win 2K Server 5.0.2195 SP2 | International | | Make it so. Sir? I mean, jam on it; do that thing! | ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6-2 (MingW32) Comment: GnuPG Signed, sealed, delivered. iD8DBQE8ocEz+Yrx5mUPRTQRAsJ/AKDCGHAREbZ9+vqkjBc+z93P1ayDKwCdFgIf GYv8xGCSB6APDFOnyWuNJy4= =gW08 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Dierk, @27 March 2002, 08:54:24 +0100 (07:54 UK time) Dierk Haasis wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] As to whether or not it messes up replying to these old-school lists, I've always found that a carefully crafted set of folder templates gets round the problem. Marck, folder templates? From you? I know, I know. I've been thinking about it though and there could be a way to do this with AB templates. If there is an AB entry for the list-admins address then the reply template can replace the To: with the CC and blank the CC. Would that work? - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D. Pearlstone -- List moderator · TB! v1.60-14F4B4B2 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 · -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6-2 (MingW32) iD8DBQE8of0XOeQkq5KdzaARAjriAKD6X0GXP2sfinHSXyWX1EUVpCGncACg5fp4 QyMlKrq/zNxf/zMHVk/Zxes= =/dRR -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Chris, @27 March 2002, 04:18:54 +0100 (03:18 UK time) Chris Lilley wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] my question is, is this configurable? No, it's not. Well, not in an easy switch, but I reckon this can be handled by using a smart template. MDP As to whether or not it messes up replying to these old-school MDP lists, I've always found that a carefully crafted set of folder MDP templates gets round the problem. Hmm can you point me to some help pages that says how I would set that up? Right here, really, by talking the issue through. Does it mean all mail from such lists has to be filtered off into particular folders, so replying from inbox would not work? Okay, let's reconsider and think about AB templates. In theory, you can create an AB entry for the list-admin address. Create a reply template which reset the TO and CC addresses to something more appropriate. I've been trying to make this work right and can't ... yet. Plus I'm not at home right now and it's not easy to test this stuff out. Anyone else want to have a play? A folder template would certainly work but, as has already been pointed out, I'm not a fan of them. They cause as many problems as they solve. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D. Pearlstone -- List moderator · TB! v1.60-14F4B4B2 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 · -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6-2 (MingW32) iD8DBQE8ogsmOeQkq5KdzaARAn9cAJ0bR/CQSIDbK8HAIy3+2LghZPYx4wCg5hVV J0wtiDSHyDGkNzMsiJEOF2I= =UWy1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi ETM, @27 March 2002, 21:47:13 -0500 (02:47 UK time) ETM wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I have noticed the problem. My reply to all placed you in To position, TBUDL in CC position (which this mailing list will *not* accept), and so I will alter the addresses to send. You actually only need to use Reply on this list, not Reply all. In fact, can I discourage folks from using Reply all on this list? It creates extra work for the moderators and double messages for the recipient. ... The To addressee was the private party AT THE DANG MAILING LIST address and TB had dropped his private address totally. I have seen it happen again and don't like the address being changed to include the poster's name appended to the list address. It's just plain strange. Surely, it is not intentional and has to be a bug. It is intentional, not a bug and easily configurable. On the main account properties, Templates, Reply, see the option: Do not use FROM name for REPLY addresses and *turn it off* ;-). - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D. Pearlstone -- List moderator · TB! v1.60-14F4B4B2 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 · -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6-2 (MingW32) iD8DBQE8ogl/OeQkq5KdzaARAsblAKC0MxQMUcoqhpifzH4VsTAZE3KssACcDpvW 5hiFHlMYOo2S/xc7cPNOIsI= =Ty6t -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers
On Wednesday, March 27, 2002, 11:22:39 AM, Chris Lilley wrote: I have since found that this issue affects all Yahoogroups (ex e-groups, onelist, etc) lists. So this is a widespread problem and not adequately categorized by the mildly derogatory 'old-school lists' which makes them sound like some fuddy, inconsequential and non-compliant minority. I guess I'm lost on this one, but I'm on several yahoo groups, and am probably over active on several, and I've never had any problems with the way that replying works. I don't understand what is messed up or needs changing? -- Dwight A. Corrin P O Box 47828 Wichita KS 67201-7828 316.263.9706 fax 316.263.6385 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! 1.60c on Windows XP version 5,1 Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[2]: Clarification requested on list reply headers
Wednesday, March 27, 2002, 4:00:54 PM, Dwight wrote: On Wednesday, March 27, 2002, 11:22:39 AM, Chris Lilley wrote: I guess I'm lost on this one, but I'm on several yahoo groups, and am probably over active on several, and I've never had any problems with the way that replying works. I don't understand what is messed up or needs changing? I'm with you, Dwight. I'm on about 15 lists, probably half yahoo lists and half not. I think the problem is with hitting reply all instead of just reply. When I use reply I have trouble with only one of my lists where reply always goes to the sender and not the group. I have to use reply all and manually remove the sender (why send to both the sender *and* and list -- it's redundant isn't it? since the sender is part of the list?) Perhaps the latter better fits someone's idea of standards, but from the list participant standpoint, it's sure a lot more convenient to hit reply and send a message to the list than to hit reply all and have to edit the recipients. -- Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v1.60 RC/2 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2 Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers
Chris Lilley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DH Marck, folder templates? From you? I have since found that this issue affects all Yahoogroups (ex e-groups, onelist, etc) lists. So this is a widespread problem ... I've seen Marck's warnings about using folder templates, along with comments from several others. What I have not seen is an explanation why this is a Bad Idea. Would someone educate this newbie? :) -- Dave Goodman The Bat! v1.53d on Windows 98 Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Clarification requested on list reply headers
Hello tbudl, I have noticed a change in behavior since moving to 1.60 from 1.53 This affects replying to lists in absence of Reply-to headers. Munging Reply-to headers is considered bad practice: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Which is summarized as Some administrators justify Reply-To munging by saying, ``All responses should go directly to the list anyway.'' This is arrogant. You should allow me to decide exactly how I wish to respond to a message. If I feel a public response is justified, I'll hit the ``g'' key and tell Elm to do a group-reply. If I believe a private response is more appropriate, I'll use ``r'' to send one. Please allow me the freedom to decide how to handle a message. The lists I have been using follow this advice and leave From and To and Cc alone. They add a Sender header to indicate the agent that sent the message. I can provide sample headers if that will help. In 1.53, reply replied to the person on the From field, and reply to all replied to the From and Cc fields. In 1.60, reply still works the same and reply to all replies to From, Cc *and Sender* fields. This has resulted in my sending a number of mails to a list admin address, because the Sender field gets copied on my reply to all. Is this change intentional? is there a way to configure The Bat! to not do that? Or do I have to manually delete the admin address on each mail? -- Chris mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Chris, @26 March 2002, 18:34:09 +0100 (17:34 UK time) Chris Lilley wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I have noticed a change in behavior since moving to 1.60 from 1.53 This affects replying to lists in absence of Reply-to headers. There is no behaviour change. Some configuration settings may have been changed. Munging Reply-to headers is considered bad practice: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Which is summarized as Some administrators justify Reply-To munging by saying, ``All responses should go directly to the list anyway.'' This is arrogant. That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. You should allow me to decide exactly how I wish to respond to a message. If I feel a public response is justified, I'll hit the ``g'' key and tell Elm to do a group-reply. If I believe a private response is more appropriate, I'll use ``r'' to send one. Please allow me the freedom to decide how to handle a message. Correct. But I believe your complaint is fuelled by the fact that you attempted to post to *both* the list and the sender. When anyone does that, a moderator has to approve the post in case the dual address was inadvertent and the mail should have been wholly private. It's the way we have our lists configured because of such errors having occurred - often through poor use of folder templates. To sender or to list, fine. Both? Redundant - and it also means that the original sender ends up with two copies of your reply. While I respect your freedom, I don't appreciate redundancy, especially when it means extra work for me g. The lists I have been using follow this advice and leave From and To and Cc alone. They add a Sender header to indicate the agent that sent the message. I can provide sample headers if that will help. Our lists leave from and to (which is always the list anyway) alone and add a Reply to header to direct replies back to the list. In 1.53, reply replied to the person on the From field, and reply to all replied to the From and Cc fields. In 1.60, reply still works the same and reply to all replies to From, Cc *and Sender* fields. If it works the same then what are you asking? There is no difference here between the versions anyway. This has resulted in my sending a number of mails to a list admin address, because the Sender field gets copied on my reply to all. Why reply to all when you should only reply /either/ to the list /or/ off-list, not both? Is this change intentional? There has been no change that I can see. is there a way to configure The Bat! to not do that? Or do I have to manually delete the admin address on each mail? The administrator is called in by the server, not by TB, whenever you do a reply all. We are asked to moderate an inappropriately addressed message in case there has been a mistake. If you want to reply on-list, just hit reply. If you want to reply privately, hit Ctrl-F4 (reply to sender). Please do not reply to all. It is always pointless on an instant response list. If you are replying on a list which only sends out messages once a week, sure you'd want to get the reply to the person asking the question a bit quicker than by sending it back to the list. Horses for courses. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D. Pearlstone -- List moderator · TB! v1.60-14F4B4B2 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 · -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6-2 (MingW32) iD8DBQE8oQaeOeQkq5KdzaARAl6SAKCFWlb6s64dN9ifEeERnMK+6ymnaQCg+Erj Wv6RSVbfESG/lw7hYsHoQCQ= =TkPV -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers
I have noticed the problem. My reply to all placed you in To position, TBUDL in CC position (which this mailing list will *not* accept), and so I will alter the addresses to send. I was embarrassed recently to find a private reply post with Hugs hit a mailing list. I have paid careful attention since then to what is occurring. The To addressee was the private party AT THE DANG MAILING LIST address and TB had dropped his private address totally. I have seen it happen again and don't like the address being changed to include the poster's name appended to the list address. It's just plain strange. Surely, it is not intentional and has to be a bug. Elaine Hello Chris On Tuesday, March 26, 2002, you wrote Hello tbudl, snip In 1.53, reply replied to the person on the From field, and reply to all replied to the From and Cc fields. In 1.60, reply still works the same and reply to all replies to From, Cc *and Sender* fields. This has resulted in my sending a number of mails to a list admin address, because the Sender field gets copied on my reply to all. Is this change intentional? is there a way to configure The Bat! to not do that? Or do I have to manually delete the admin address on each mail? Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification requested on list reply headers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Chris, @26 March 2002, 18:34:09 +0100 (17:34 UK time) Chris Lilley wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Just to clarify one more thing... In 1.60, reply still works the same and reply to all replies to From, Cc *and Sender* fields. I see what you mean by this now having tested it. It makes a real mess on the old fashioned/*nix style lists. I'm not sure what would be best to do here. The change appeared in Beta 8: [*] The Sender field is used first when no Reply-To specified but nobody took any kind of exception to it at that time and it was introduced to cover a behaviour shortfall. As to whether or not it messes up replying to these old-school lists, I've always found that a carefully crafted set of folder templates gets round the problem. Is it right? Is it wrong? My guess is that it's as wrong as HTML mail. And we all know how many sides there are to that argument. I personally have no firm opinion on this one, other than that it works right for me most of the time (and I deal with a fair amount of mail and a fair amount of lists). - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D. Pearlstone -- List moderator · TB! v1.60-14F4B4B2 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 · -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6-2 (MingW32) iD8DBQE8oTDgOeQkq5KdzaARAhRIAKCxGyG13U9pPTvUF/p1G2nNKmUDMwCfQG3y +/dFKVbL7OIsMx3FetKJ4xs= =3sBV -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[2]: Clarification requested on list reply headers
On Wednesday, March 27, 2002, 12:39:07 AM, Marck wrote: MDP -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- MDP Hash: SHA1 MDP Hi Chris, MDP @26 March 2002, 18:34:09 +0100 (17:34 UK time) Chris Lilley wrote in MDP [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I have noticed a change in behavior since moving to 1.60 from 1.53 This affects replying to lists in absence of Reply-to headers. MDP There is no behaviour change. Some configuration settings may have MDP been changed. Munging Reply-to headers is considered bad practice: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Which is summarized as Some administrators justify Reply-To munging by saying, ``All responses should go directly to the list anyway.'' This is arrogant. MDP That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. I agree its one way of looking at it. They were not my words, just ones from the site whose url proceeded them. You should allow me to decide exactly how I wish to respond to a message. If I feel a public response is justified, I'll hit the ``g'' key and tell Elm to do a group-reply. If I believe a private response is more appropriate, I'll use ``r'' to send one. Please allow me the freedom to decide how to handle a message. MDP Correct. But I believe your complaint is fuelled by the fact that you MDP attempted to post to *both* the list and the sender. With respect, you don't know what I attempted since you were not on any of the lists i was referring to. MDP When anyone does MDP that, a moderator has to approve the post in case the dual address was MDP inadvertent and the mail should have been wholly private. That may be true for *this* current list; it is not generally true. MDP It's the way MDP we have our lists configured because of such errors having occurred - MDP often through poor use of folder templates. To sender or to list, MDP fine. Both? Redundant - and it also means that the original sender MDP ends up with two copies of your reply. While I respect your freedom, I MDP don't appreciate redundancy, especially when it means extra work for MDP me g. It means no extra work for you whatsoever, and is the general practice for the fifty or so lists that I am speaking about, because they are separately archived and thus it is common to copy specific multiple lists. So feel free to respect my freedom safe in the knowledge that it involves no extra work for you. The lists I have been using follow this advice and leave From and To and Cc alone. They add a Sender header to indicate the agent that sent the message. I can provide sample headers if that will help. MDP Our lists leave from and to (which is always the list anyway) alone MDP and add a Reply to header to direct replies back to the list. Quite. But the lists i was referring to, as I said, don't have Reply-To set like that and it was the behavior with those lists that I was asking about. In 1.53, reply replied to the person on the From field, and reply to all replied to the From and Cc fields. In 1.60, reply still works the same and reply to all replies to From, Cc *and Sender* fields. MDP If it works the same then what are you asking? There is no difference MDP here between the versions anyway. Check the part in asterisks in the description for 1.60 and note that it is not there in 1.53 thus, a change. This has resulted in my sending a number of mails to a list admin address, because the Sender field gets copied on my reply to all. MDP Why reply to all when you should only reply /either/ to the list /or/ MDP off-list, not both? Is this change intentional? MDP There has been no change that I can see. See above. I think that, because you thought I was talking specifically about this current list, you had the config of this list in mind and thus your response was not always to what I wrote. is there a way to configure The Bat! to not do that? Or do I have to manually delete the admin address on each mail? MDP The administrator is called in by the server, not by TB, whenever you MDP do a reply all. There is no administrator on the lists I am referring to, and they are not configured like the tbudl list. -- Chrismailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[2]: Clarification requested on list reply headers
On Wednesday, March 27, 2002, 3:39:25 AM, Marck wrote: MDP -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- MDP Hash: SHA1 MDP Hi Chris, MDP @26 March 2002, 18:34:09 +0100 (17:34 UK time) Chris Lilley wrote in MDP [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] MDP Just to clarify one more thing... In 1.60, reply still works the same and reply to all replies to From, Cc *and Sender* fields. MDP I see what you mean by this now having tested it. It makes a real mess MDP on the old fashioned/*nix style lists. Yes, the lists are unix lists (debian linux) run using smartlist. MDP I'm not sure what would be best MDP to do here. The change appeared in Beta 8: MDP [*] The Sender field is used first when no Reply-To specified Ok. And as you say, opinions differ on whether it is right or wrong - my question is, is this configurable? MDP but nobody took any kind of exception to it at that time and it was MDP introduced to cover a behaviour shortfall. MDP As to whether or not it messes up replying to these old-school lists, MDP I've always found that a carefully crafted set of folder templates MDP gets round the problem. Hmm can you point me to some help pages that says how I would set that up? Does it mean all mail from such lists has to be filtered off into particular folders,so replying from inbox would not work? MDP Is it right? Is it wrong? My guess is that it's as wrong as HTML mail. MDP And we all know how many sides there are to that argument. I MDP personally have no firm opinion on this one, other than that it works MDP right for me most of the time (and I deal with a fair amount of mail MDP and a fair amount of lists). OK, and I respect that. My problem is that it works wrong for me 99% of the time and I process a couple of megabytes of mail a day so a solution that did not involve manually editing the headers of most mails or downgrading back to 1.53 would be appreciated. -- Chrismailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
