Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
On 2013-08-21 10:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: - If there is nowhere I can reasonably trim their comments to establish context, and my response is just a general reply rather than specifically responding to specific comments (e.g. if my reply is thanks for your email, I'll consider it for the future sort of thing) then I might top post, leaving their comments below for context. In such a case, I cut to the conclusion point in their e-mail and reply below it. I don't see why top-posting would be beneficial here, this method is wasteful. pgpE_cCRaj4qE.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
On 20/08/13 01:18, Leam Hall wrote: Am I more confused than normal or if I click Reply should it go just to the sender instead of the list? Reply replies to the sender. Reply All replies to the whole list Some mail tools also have a Reply List feature which also replies to the list. -- Alan G Author of the Learn to Program web site http://www.alan-g.me.uk/ ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Leam Hall leamh...@gmail.com wrote: All, Am I more confused than normal or if I click Reply should it go just to the sender instead of the list? Yep. Someone decided it didn't make sense for reply to go to the list that sent the message and should be receiving the reply. I've never understood it, even after reading the arguments in favor. Andy ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
On 20 August 2013 13:15, Andy McKenzie amckenz...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Leam Hall leamh...@gmail.com wrote: Am I more confused than normal or if I click Reply should it go just to the sender instead of the list? Yep. Someone decided it didn't make sense for reply to go to the list that sent the message and should be receiving the reply. I've never understood it, even after reading the arguments in favor. I've never understood it either. The reasoning seems to be that a special List-Post email field was added for this purpose and so all the email clients should get fixed to have a reply-list button that sends your reply to that address. It's been almost 10 years since RFC 4021 described this idea (or is it even older?) during which time the number of email clients in use has exploded and AFAIK very few of them have the reply-list feature. Some time ago I suggested reply-to munging for this very list but there wasn't a great deal of enthusiasm for the idea. Oscar ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Alan Gauld alan.ga...@btinternet.comwrote: On 20/08/13 13:15, Andy McKenzie wrote: Yep. Someone decided it didn't make sense for reply to go to the list that sent the message Lists never send messages. People do. So reply goes to the *person* who sent the message. Which is what mail always does, to modify it for mail forwarded by a list server makes no sense whatsoever. And it breaks the ability to send to the originator. IMHO of course :-) http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutorhttp://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor The problem is, as far as I'm concerned the message came from the list. Needing to go to the dropdown and select Reply to all is just one extra movement, and it's one I have to make every single time I reply. In all honesty, I can't think of a single time that I've wanted to reply to just the original sender: that's the point of a mailing list, to have conversations on it. I've occasionally been prompted to remember that I wanted to ask an individual something specific off-list, but it's never been a direct response to what was posted ON the list. As to the ability to send to the originator: I've been on a lot of lists where the address was munged. They all included the original sender's email address in the body, so if I really wanted to send to them, I could. And the rest of the time (basically always) I didn't have to think about it. It's basically a practicality thing for me. On a list where the vast majority of replies went to the original sender, I'd agree with you. For something like this, it's just making me do extra work without providing me with an extra benefit. Andy ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
On 20/08/13 13:15, Andy McKenzie wrote: Yep. Someone decided it didn't make sense for reply to go to the list that sent the message Lists never send messages. People do. So reply goes to the *person* who sent the message. Which is what mail always does, to modify it for mail forwarded by a list server makes no sense whatsoever. And it breaks the ability to send to the originator. IMHO of course :-) -- Alan G Author of the Learn to Program web site http://www.alan-g.me.uk/ ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Alan Gauld alan.ga...@btinternet.com wrote: On 20/08/13 13:15, Andy McKenzie wrote: Yep. Someone decided it didn't make sense for reply to go to the list that sent the message Lists never send messages. People do. So reply goes to the *person* who sent the message. Which is what mail always does, to modify it for mail forwarded by a list server makes no sense whatsoever. And it breaks the ability to send to the originator. The From: field still contains an e-mail address of a human. Just copy-paste it into the To: field of your reply. And replying to the human instead of the list is almost never what you want. -- Chris “Kwpolska” Warrick http://kwpolska.tk PGP: 5EAAEA16 stop html mail | always bottom-post | only UTF-8 makes sense ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
Replying to the human, vice the list, is about 99% never what I want. With a 1% margin of error. :) Leam On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Chris “Kwpolska” Warrick kwpol...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Alan Gauld alan.ga...@btinternet.com wrote: On 20/08/13 13:15, Andy McKenzie wrote: Yep. Someone decided it didn't make sense for reply to go to the list that sent the message Lists never send messages. People do. So reply goes to the *person* who sent the message. Which is what mail always does, to modify it for mail forwarded by a list server makes no sense whatsoever. And it breaks the ability to send to the originator. The From: field still contains an e-mail address of a human. Just copy-paste it into the To: field of your reply. And replying to the human instead of the list is almost never what you want. -- Chris “Kwpolska” Warrick http://kwpolska.tk PGP: 5EAAEA16 stop html mail | always bottom-post | only UTF-8 makes sense ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor -- Mind on a Mission http://leamhall.blogspot.com/ ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
On Aug 20, 2013 3:04 PM, Andy McKenzie amckenz...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Alan Gauld alan.ga...@btinternet.com wrote: On 20/08/13 13:15, Andy McKenzie wrote: Yep. Someone decided it didn't make sense for reply to go to the list that sent the message Lists never send messages. People do. So reply goes to the *person* who sent the message. snip The problem is, as far as I'm concerned the message came from the list. Needing to go to the dropdown and select Reply to all is just one extra movement, and it's one I have to make every single time I reply. In all honesty, I can't think of a single time that I've wanted to reply to just the original sender: that's the point of a mailing list, to have conversations on it. I've occasionally been prompted to remember that I wanted to ask an individual something specific off-list, but it's never been a direct response to what was posted ON the list. snip It's basically a practicality thing for me. On a list where the vast majority of replies went to the original sender, I'd agree with you. For something like this, it's just making me do extra work without providing me with an extra benefit. Hi all, Alan's argument seems compelling, but is principled, thus perhaps vulnerable to a `practicality beats purity' response. What tips me against reply to munging is the principle of least damage, itself eminently practical. Imagine the non-actual possible world where this list reply munges and in which I wished to write Andy directly to cast aspersions on Alan's character and ancestry out of a misguided belief that reply to munging is right. I hit reply and shortly afterwards realize that I am missing toes. In the actual world, I might have accidentally sent this solely to Andy out of inattention. Irksome, but I still have all 7 of my toes. Powerful software often can and ought allow one to shoot oneself in the foot. It ought not however be designed so that in one context, doing what is safe and normal in another context surprisingly points a firearm at your feet without the accompaniment of klaxons and lights. (And even then …) Best, Brian vdB ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
The only question I have is what is compelling about being different than other lists? Far as I can tell, most reply to the list if you click reply. It's not something to get religious over; if I reply and don't have time to make sure it goes to those who might be interested, at least it will go to the person I'm responding to. They can forward it on if it's important enough. :) Leam On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Brian van den Broek brian.van.den.br...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 20, 2013 3:04 PM, Andy McKenzie amckenz...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Alan Gauld alan.ga...@btinternet.com wrote: On 20/08/13 13:15, Andy McKenzie wrote: Yep. Someone decided it didn't make sense for reply to go to the list that sent the message Lists never send messages. People do. So reply goes to the *person* who sent the message. snip The problem is, as far as I'm concerned the message came from the list. Needing to go to the dropdown and select Reply to all is just one extra movement, and it's one I have to make every single time I reply. In all honesty, I can't think of a single time that I've wanted to reply to just the original sender: that's the point of a mailing list, to have conversations on it. I've occasionally been prompted to remember that I wanted to ask an individual something specific off-list, but it's never been a direct response to what was posted ON the list. snip It's basically a practicality thing for me. On a list where the vast majority of replies went to the original sender, I'd agree with you. For something like this, it's just making me do extra work without providing me with an extra benefit. Hi all, Alan's argument seems compelling, but is principled, thus perhaps vulnerable to a `practicality beats purity' response. What tips me against reply to munging is the principle of least damage, itself eminently practical. Imagine the non-actual possible world where this list reply munges and in which I wished to write Andy directly to cast aspersions on Alan's character and ancestry out of a misguided belief that reply to munging is right. I hit reply and shortly afterwards realize that I am missing toes. In the actual world, I might have accidentally sent this solely to Andy out of inattention. Irksome, but I still have all 7 of my toes. Powerful software often can and ought allow one to shoot oneself in the foot. It ought not however be designed so that in one context, doing what is safe and normal in another context surprisingly points a firearm at your feet without the accompaniment of klaxons and lights. (And even then …) Best, Brian vdB ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor -- Mind on a Mission http://leamhall.blogspot.com/ ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
leam hall wrote: The only question I have is what is compelling about being different than other lists? Far as I can tell, most reply to the list if you click reply. It's not something to get religious over; if I reply and don't have time to make sure it goes to those who might be interested, at least it will go to the person I'm responding to. They can forward it on if it's important enough. :) Yeah, and top-posting with html mail is similarly taking the easy way out. After all, who cares if everyone else has to put up with your bad habits. -- DaveA ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
leam hall wrote: The only question I have is what is compelling about being different than other lists? Far as I can tell, most reply to the list if you click reply. It's not something to get religious over; if I reply and don't have time to make sure it goes to those who might be interested, at least it will go to the person I'm responding to. They can forward it on if it's important enough. :) Yeah, and top-posting with html mail is similarly taking the easy way out. After all, who cares if everyone else has to put up with your bad habits. Well, since someone else brought it up... I really prefer top posting. In general, I don't WANT to reread every message: I want to quickly get to whatever is new. Top posting, much like the return-address munging question, is a personal preference. For me, it runs opposite to what this list requires. Clearly whoever set up this list agreed with you. What REALLY gets to me is the people who try to insist that their way is objectively RIGHT, and everyone else is practicing bad habits, or polluting the net, or some other nonsense like that. The fact is, we just have different work flow preferences. You like one thing, I like another. If you want to present your view rationally and objectively, or talk about your preferred layouts, that's fine. But let's not start saying someone has bad habits because they disagree with you. Andy ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
On 2013-08-20 18:40, Andy McKenzie wrote: Well, since someone else brought it up... I really prefer top posting. In general, I don't WANT to reread every message: I want to quickly get to whatever is new. Right, which is why when top posting you should cut to the relevant context. What REALLY gets to me is the people who try to insist that their way is objectively RIGHT, and everyone else is practicing bad habits, or polluting the net, or some other nonsense like that. The fact is, we just have different work flow preferences. You like one thing, I like another. If you want to present your view rationally and objectively, or talk about your preferred layouts, that's fine. But let's not start saying someone has bad habits because they disagree with you. In Gmail (which it appears that you are using) I don't think it really matters, since it selectively collapses the context anyway. It certainly matters when reading in a mail client that doesn't collapse quotes (which, in my opinion, is not something a mail reader should be doing anyway). I agree this is a personal opinion, but mixing the two in a single thread often makes message flow completely incomprehensible. I am also in the bottomposting camp, I'm not very dogmatic about it as long as people don't mix the two in a single thread. Then it just becomes functionally irritating. pgpMSR7KnZqbl.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
On 2013-08-21 01:01, Chris Down wrote: Right, which is why when top posting you should cut to the relevant context. s/top posting/bottom posting/ I'm interested to know how you can reply and reference multiple parts of a message clearly when top posting, though. I think that's impossible without destroying clarity. Bottom posting is just objectively much more intuitive when replying per-context and not per-message, which is what you want almost all of the time. pgpkZPPYGkIok.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
On 21/08/13 09:09, Chris Down wrote: On 2013-08-21 01:01, Chris Down wrote: Right, which is why when top posting you should cut to the relevant context. s/top posting/bottom posting/ I'm interested to know how you can reply and reference multiple parts of a message clearly when top posting, though. I think that's impossible without destroying clarity. Bottom posting is just objectively much more intuitive when replying per-context and not per-message, which is what you want almost all of the time. Please don't call it bottom posting. Bottom posting is when you scroll all the way past the original message, and append your reply at the bottom. Unless the quoted message is very short, as it is here, bottom-posting is worse than top-posting, since it has all the disadvantages of top-posting, AND loses the one advantage (namely that you can quickly see new content without scrolling). What you're referring to is inline or interleaved posting, where the reply is interleaved between paragraphs of quoted text, thus establishing context, rather like a conversation. Since what we're doing here *is* a conversation, albeit written rather than spoken, interleaving responses is most natural. But sometimes, if the communication isn't really a conversation as such, a short top-posted reply is best. The rule of thumb I use is this: - If the poster raises various points that need to be answered individually, then I interleave my responses with their comments: Question, Answer, Question, Answer sort of thing. - If there is nowhere I can reasonably trim their comments to establish context, and my response is just a general reply rather than specifically responding to specific comments (e.g. if my reply is thanks for your email, I'll consider it for the future sort of thing) then I might top post, leaving their comments below for context. Whatever posting style is used *clarity of communication* should be the intent. Too many people make *ease of firing off an email with the least effort possible* their intent, and screw their readers. -- Steven ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
On 21/08/13 08:40, Andy McKenzie wrote: Well, since someone else brought it up... I really prefer top posting. In general, I don't WANT to reread every message: I want to quickly get to whatever is new. You shouldn't have to reread every message. At most, you should have to skim a few paragraphs of quoted text to establish context, and then get to the new stuff. Like here. Notice I've trimmed all the extraneous conversation, and got right down to the bit that matters. Of course, this is a simple case. Sometimes it's harder to trim, and you end up with multiple paragraphs of older text. But even then you don't have to read the whole thing, you should be able to skim it, looking for key words or key sentences that establish context. Those with reading difficulties (e.g. the blind or partially sighted, those reading in a language they are not fluent in, or simply lousy readers) may have trouble skimming text. I'm sympathetic, but they're not actually worse off than with top-posting. They can just ignore the quoted text, and hope that the response makes sense without context. Just like reading a top-posted message. [...] What REALLY gets to me is the people who try to insist that their way is objectively RIGHT, and everyone else is practicing bad habits, or polluting the net, or some other nonsense like that. The fact is, we just have different work flow preferences. You like one thing, I like another. If you want to present your view rationally and objectively, or talk about your preferred layouts, that's fine. But let's not start saying someone has bad habits because they disagree with you. I've been getting and sending email long enough, in enough different contexts, that I think I can objectively say: most email users can't write for shit, and posting style doesn't enter into it, they're just poor writers, lazy writers, incompetent writers. On a technical forum like this, you're seeing a better-than-average set of writers. I think I can also say that for a wide range of situations, top-posting is objectively worse for a number of reasons, but it's not too bad if you have a very small number of emails between just two parties, and it certainly does have an advantage that it clearly puts the response right up top where it is easy to see. The worst part of top-posting is that the typical email will raise more than one question or point that needs answering, but without context, it's hard to clearly respond when top-posting. You need a chunk of added verbiage: You asked a question about map(), the answer is blah blah blah. You also asked about the exception that you got. The line of code that failed was blah blah blah, and the reason for the exception was blah... Also, you mentioned blah blah blah, to which I say, blah... You simply don't need that extra verbiage when posting interleaved after the question, the question can stand for itself! But since most people are lazy writers, they don't do either. They arbitrarily pick one question (usually the first, or the simplest) and answer it alone. (I've sent business emails to people where I clearly said I need the answer to these three questions or we cannot proceed with your project, and enumerate the questions, and they responded to the *last* question and ignored the other two. Lazy *and* stupid, the story of mankind.) What gets me is the ever-growing cancerous lump of quoted-quoted-quoted-quoted-quoted text that grows at the bottom of top-posted emails. Email volume grow exponentially in size, e.g.: First email is 5 lines long. Reply is 5 lines long + 5 quoted lines, = 10 lines. Reply to that is 5 lines long, + 10 quoted lines = 15 lines. Reply to that is 5 lines long, + 15 quoted lines = 20 lines. Reply to that is 5 lines long, + 20 quoted lines = 25 lines. After five emails, we have a total of 75 lines of text, of which only 25 lines is actual fresh content, a ratio of 33%. The signal-to-noise ratio rapidly diminishes. After ten emails, the ratio is 18%, and after 20, just 9%. That's worse than interleaved posting with trimming, where the ideal is a 1:1 ratio. Real email conversations don't get anywhere near that ideal, but my estimate is that a ratio of 50% or better is easily attainable so long as people trim. In practice, business email is even worse than this: messages tend to be short, and those stupid and legally meaningless disclaimers at the bottom of emails long. I've seen a TWENTY line disclaimer, quoted FOURTEEN times, in a single email: This email may contain blah blah blah ... This email may contain blah blah blah ... This email may contain blah blah blah ... This email may contain blah blah blah ... This email may contain blah blah blah ... ... Seriously, I kid you not. A few years ago, the company I work for took a customer to court for non-payment. During discovery, we had to provide the customer with copies of all emails between us. I
Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
Andy McKenzie wrote: (DaveA wrote, but wasn't attributed) Yeah, and top-posting with html mail is similarly taking the easy way out. After all, who cares if everyone else has to put up with your bad habits. Well, since someone else brought it up... I really prefer top posting. In general, I don't WANT to reread every message: You shouldn't have any messages to reread. If one quotes only what's relevant, it gives context without extra noise. The whole notion of top--posting only makes sense when it's a one-to-one email session, where you need to keep the entire history of the exchange. It breaks down as soon as there are multiple public replies in the same thread, or when there are multiple points you want to respond to. What REALLY gets to me is the people who try to insist that their way is objectively RIGHT, and everyone else is practicing bad habits, or polluting the net, or some other nonsense like that. The fact is, we just have different work flow preferences. You like one thing, I like another. If you want to present your view rationally and objectively, or talk about your preferred layouts, that's fine. But let's not start saying someone has bad habits because they disagree with you. div dir=ltrleam hall wrote:brdiv class=gmail_extradiv class=gmail_quoteblockquote class=gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1exdivdiv class=im br gt; The only question I have is what is compelling about being different thanbr gt; other lists? Far as I can tell, most reply to the list if you click reply.br gt;br gt; It#39;s not something to get religious over; if I reply and don#39;t have time tobr gt; make sure it goes to those who might be interested, at least it will go tobr gt; the person I#39;m responding to. They can forward it on if it#39;s importantbr gt; enough. :)br gt;br br snip lots more of this I notice that you didn't pay any attention to the other bad habit. Why should we all pay to download an html message as well as the text message. -- DaveA ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
[Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
All, Am I more confused than normal or if I click Reply should it go just to the sender instead of the list? Leam -- http://31challenge.net http://31challenge.net/insight ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Re: [Tutor] [OT] Replies go to individuals, not the list?
On 20/08/13 10:18, Leam Hall wrote: All, Am I more confused than normal or if I click Reply should it go just to the sender instead of the list? Ah, the perennial argument about From address munging! Google for From address munging considered helpful and From address munging considered harmful for more information. https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=from+address+munging+considered+helpful https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=from+address+munging+considered+harmful In a nutshell, when you send an email to a mailing list, some mailing lists leave the From address to your email address, while others edit the From address to be the mailing list itself. This mailing list performs no munging, so on this list: Reply - sender only Reply All - sender, and the list CCed Reply To List (if your email program supports this command) - list only -- Steven ___ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
