Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 07:54 +1100, Ben Schmidt wrote: > > Hey! I like lists without Reply-To set. I don't think they're braindead, We need to agree to disagree Ben :) > However, your point is valid. If you *really* want to keep all > discussion public for a list, Reply-To is a way to achieve this. It > makes private replies very difficult, which might be what you want. > geez even linux can do copy and paste ya know :) > It does cause a few problems, though. One is that authors can't set the > Reply-To header the way they want to (and, as was pointed out earlier, > they standardly have the 'right' to set that header). > Agree > Arguably, direct replies also cause problems. For example, the Reply > List button, which as I said earlier, is in a lot of ways my "go to" > button for lists, has problems with those--direct replies don't go via > the list, so don't have a List-Post header, and Reply List doesn't work. > I need to use Reply All, which sends both to the list and the individual > I'm replying to. That's often OK, though, because they replied to me in > that fashion. Nevertheless, it's not always what I want, so sometimes > some manual adjustment is in order. > evolutions ctrl-l (reply list) is a force of habit here, regardless of what the reply setting are, I find it faster to use than clicking on reply/reply-all anyway > (2) I think it only applies to some > lists; others are not like usenet. > Thankfully :) > > Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, no solution is perfect. I think there +1 > are uses for Reply List, I use it regularly in Thunderbird, and I don't > think it's confusing or see any other reason to exclude it. Sure, it's > not necessary, but it's not harmful, either. Consequently, I would like > to see it in RoundCube also. Please consider my vote cast. I've laid out I have no problems with this and would not object if it was to be a function, although i personally rarely use webmail, I guess if asked, I would vote FOR this feature too. Noel <> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 17:25 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote: > > Personally, I don't like that preference because I would much rather get > the LIST post than the direct one. > also, some list software can be configured that if it sees a direct copy, it wont send them the list copy, mailman has this option IIRC, so the direct copy gets rejected due to DNSBL, spam, or whatever - end result is the recipient ends up with no message at all. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On 2014-01-20 3:25 PM, Ben Schmidt wrote: Are you referring to the claim that mailing list managers filter out recipients who have been given a direct copy? Can you refer me to an MLM that actually does this, with some definite proof that it does? Because I've heard rumours that they do this, but I have never actually seen one do it yet, that I've noticed. This kind of filtering is fraught with problems, that we discussed earlier in the thread, and because of them, I believe, many MLMs simply don't do this 'intelligent' filtering that people claim they do. Mailman can do it, but I don't think it is a default setting, and if I'm not mistaken I've seen references to it simply being a 'best effort', not a guarantee... Personally, I don't like that preference because I would much rather get the LIST post than the direct one. -- Best regards, Charles ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
Dont quite get you there, but its pretty simple, we are on a list, having an open discussion, if you reply to me, or I, you, then it should go by the list, on this list very simple, its configured correctly by having reply-to set, to the list, problem does not exist, if you reply, or reply-all, at least when I do in evolution, it only sends to lists. some clients and free mail providers, it sends to list, and to the author on reply-all evolution does allow reply to list if I hit control-l for those brain dead lists that do not set reply-to headers, if in that case you hit reply-all to get it to list, yes, else reply, direct to sender. Hey! I like lists without Reply-To set. I don't think they're braindead, nor am I braindead myself to think that. However, your point is valid. If you *really* want to keep all discussion public for a list, Reply-To is a way to achieve this. It makes private replies very difficult, which might be what you want. It does cause a few problems, though. One is that authors can't set the Reply-To header the way they want to (and, as was pointed out earlier, they standardly have the 'right' to set that header). I think you're right that different clients do different things with Reply All. Arguably, direct replies also cause problems. For example, the Reply List button, which as I said earlier, is in a lot of ways my "go to" button for lists, has problems with those--direct replies don't go via the list, so don't have a List-Post header, and Reply List doesn't work. I need to use Reply All, which sends both to the list and the individual I'm replying to. That's often OK, though, because they replied to me in that fashion. Nevertheless, it's not always what I want, so sometimes some manual adjustment is in order. AFAIC, list posts are like usenet, if you partake in a public discussion then your reply should go public, you may give an answer to a real sticky problem, no point in only one person getting the answer, it should be on-list so others are aware, and also it can be archived so others with same problem in future can find answer. If you think your reply is not fit for list, or, you may want information you are not willing to make public (like for example your domain name, or a hostname) then it is acceptable to reply directly with that information, but any follows afterwards, should be back onlist. I agree. But (1) I don't think such a policy should be enforced by list settings, such as Reply-To, and (2) I think it only applies to some lists; others are not like usenet. No one would be having this discussion if list owners configured their lists correctly (as Thomas has done here with users@) No. But they may be having a different one about how we could make it easier to send private replies when we want to. Or how as authors we could indicate where we want private replies set, since our Reply-To header keeps getting clobbered by the list robot. So that is where I got the idea that you don't agree with Reply All for mailing list discussions, in expressing the agreement above! See? if it does reply to list and poster, then I do disagree with it. Of course, if a list doesn't have proper List-Post, etc. headers set, it has no choice, because it can't determine it is a list. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, no solution is perfect. I think there are uses for Reply List, I use it regularly in Thunderbird, and I don't think it's confusing or see any other reason to exclude it. Sure, it's not necessary, but it's not harmful, either. Consequently, I would like to see it in RoundCube also. Please consider my vote cast. I've laid out my reasons, and I hope also brought a little insight from an MLM perspective. I will not flog a dead horse. Thank you to the developers for all the work on RoundCube--it is a great and useful piece of software (even without Reply List :-p). Ben. ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
The vast majority of MUA software on the planet has only Reply and Reply All. Those users are using Reply All, so as to keep it a group discussion. "Reply All" has a standard, decades old behavior, and mailing list robots are designed around the assumption that it is used. Email, and certainly email standards, which spawned email traditions, such as Reply All, are older than mailing lists, and mailing list standards such as List-Post, which is slowly spawning new traditions such as Reply List. The assumption that "we are in the same list" only holds when all the recipients of the message are subscribers of the list (because it rejects posts from nonsubscribers). Such a policy is made necessary by spammers. Traditionally, a subscriber of a mailing list is not one who wishes to post to it, but one who wishes to be in the loop on all new postings. Hear, hear! There currently isn't any fully reliable way for the MUA to know who is a subscriber and who isn't; only the list robot knows. Reply All does the right thing in all circumstances. Mailing list robots know that it's being used and process things intelligently. Are you referring to the claim that mailing list managers filter out recipients who have been given a direct copy? Can you refer me to an MLM that actually does this, with some definite proof that it does? Because I've heard rumours that they do this, but I have never actually seen one do it yet, that I've noticed. This kind of filtering is fraught with problems, that we discussed earlier in the thread, and because of them, I believe, many MLMs simply don't do this 'intelligent' filtering that people claim they do. The new-fangled Reply List is nonstandard, and makes assumptions about how lists are configured. I don't think it makes any assumptions about how lists are configured. If a list includes the standard List-Post header, it exposes it, through a "reply" button, that's all. I only wish MUAs would expose more of the standard List-* headers, such as List-Unsubscribe, and MLMs wouldn't need so many keyword filters and list admins time, to deal with people sending messages saying "unsubscribe" to the list. As Ben Schmidt has noted, it is useful in specific circumstances, not as a "go to" button for replying to any posting on any kind of mailing list. Although it's true that its use is limited, as Reply and Reply All certainly still have their uses, actually, I think Reply List is the "go to" button for mailing lists, as it works regardless of whether a list has its Reply-To header set or not. Certainly in Thunderbird, it is quickly becoming my "go to" button, as I can't remember which of the lists I subscribe to have Reply-To set, and which don't. Pushing Reply List always does what I want. If I want to include the individual I'm replying to, because a reply is particularly relevant to them, I hit Reply All--and then adjust the headers if it was a Reply-To list, because it won't work then. If I want to send a private reply, I hit Reply--and then adjust the headers if it was a Reply-To list, because it won't work then. Not always, this account for instance sorts by list, anything not associate with a list-id or x-been-there, gets sent to an x-blah folder right at the end, so my inbox stays pretty empty, and your direct messages may not get read for weeks, as I liken it to a second spam folder :) That's fine. If you don't want direct replies, you don't have to have them. And I think you've done exactly the right thing by filing them in a folder you rarely read. You're doing what you want using your software, rather than expecting MLMs, MUAs and others to do your job for you. There are two good ways to sort list-related discussions into folders. If the list postings have some subject line tag like [RCU], you can use that. It is hard to know what is going to happen with this, since such a hack breaks DomainKeys/DKIM, which is being deployed more and more widely, and honoured more and more often, particularly by big mail providers. It's possibly MUAs will start marking messages as list posts using the List-Id header or something, and then subject line hacks gradually disappear. A way which does not rely on this subject line hack is this: have your rule look for the address of the list in the Cc: or To: In other words, whenever a given list is one of the recipients of a message, that message can be deemed as being related to that list and shunted to the appropriate folder. This works great for both list replies and direct replies. Yes, if you use list-specific headers to do your sorting, something will happen that you might not necessarily like: direct replies go to your inbox, and only list copies to the list folder. But, this may also be why someone like Ben Schmidt (for whom I obviously cannot speak) may want those two copies. He might want the robot-generated list copies to go to the list folder for reference, where all the threads are intact in their entirety,
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On 18.01.2014 05:58, Charles Marcus wrote: On 2014-01-17 10:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: Your vehemence against private replies is bizarre and baffling. Surprisingly, I'm in agreement with Noel (I generally don't see his posts unless someone quotes him)... What you seem to fail to be grasping is, we are saying that on PUBLIC DISCUSSION lists, the DEFAULT behavior should be to reply to the list, as that facilitates the purpose of the list: PUBLIC DISCUSSION. I'm not failing to grasp anything. The usual behavior should be that, of course. Yes, some people hit Reply thinking they are carrying on the list conversation and that is a bit of a problem. (I've seen it and it's annoying, indeed.) They still have the intent of participating in the group discussion, but choose the wrong command that doesn't implement their intent. Has it occurred to you that maybe some of these people have been conditioned by lists that munge Reply-To, which confirms their wrong belief that Reply is the command for the default action? It's like disease: it harms lists that don't use it! ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On 2014-01-17 10:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: Your vehemence against private replies is bizarre and baffling. Surprisingly, I'm in agreement with Noel (I generally don't see his posts unless someone quotes him)... What you seem to fail to be grasping is, we are saying that on PUBLIC DISCUSSION lists, the DEFAULT behavior should be to reply to the list, as that facilitates the purpose of the list: PUBLIC DISCUSSION. I didn't see anything in Noels post discouraging replying privately when it is appropriate. That said, while my own personal preference would be that all lists would NOT munge the Reply-To' headers and all list participants would then use the 'Reply' or 'Reply-To-List' buttons as appropriate, the sad fact is, the large majority of people using discussion lists will simply never 'get it'. ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On 17.01.2014 16:25, Noel Butler wrote: On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 18:58 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote: Charles Marcus skrev den 2014-01-16 20:27: On 2014-01-15 1:54 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: thunderbird need a plugin to make it work, roundcube it just works default Thunderbird has had a proper 'Reply-To-List' button/feature for a long time now. and RCU maillist now makes it impossible to reply private :( why? Y O U are on a P U B L I C discussion list, if Y O U have something private to say (not that much you say makes any bloody sense anyway) it is Y O U that is changing the behaviour, so Y O U should be the one to take whatever steps Y O U need so Y O U can contact someone direct, like oh I dunno, hitting forward maybe Note that Usenet, which provides a much more solid forum abstraction than the illusion created by mailing lists, supports private replies. This ability is important in any civilized forum. One function that it serves is that if it is used appropriately, it reduces noise. For instance, suppose some noob contacts the list out of the blue and asks a question that is almost a carbon copy of #3 in the list's FAQ. The appropriate thing is to send a private reply to the noob and direct them to the FAQ, and not waste the list's bandwidth. If the list is moderated, the moderator might send this private reply (and not admit the useless question to the list at all). In this very list, I have numerous times answered something privately, when it was basic confusion that comes up again and again (about what RCU is and isn't). Your vehemence against private replies is bizarre and baffling. ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
Noel Butler skrev den 2014-01-18 01:25: Y O U are on a P U B L I C discussion list, and ? ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 11:12 -0800, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > Indeed, Reindl did not reply to the list, as claimed; or at least so I'm > led to suspect, based on not having received the post you're replying > to, keeping in mind that absence of evidence doesn't proves absence. Harald is currently moderated and can not post to this list, so you will not see his posts via the list server. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 18:58 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote: > Charles Marcus skrev den 2014-01-16 20:27: > > On 2014-01-15 1:54 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > >> thunderbird need a plugin to make it work, roundcube it just works > >> default > > > > Thunderbird has had a proper 'Reply-To-List' button/feature for a long > > time now.\ > > and RCU maillist now makes it impossible to reply private :( > why? Y O U are on a P U B L I C discussion list, if Y O U have something private to say (not that much you say makes any bloody sense anyway) it is Y O U that is changing the behaviour, so Y O U should be the one to take whatever steps Y O U need so Y O U can contact someone direct, like oh I dunno, hitting forward maybe signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On 17.01.2014 11:38, Charles Marcus wrote: On 2014-01-17 2:12 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: On 17.01.2014 10:10, Charles Marcus wrote: On 2014-01-17 1:04 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 17.01.2014 18:58, schrieb Benny Pedersen: and RCU maillist now makes it impossible to reply private :( really? look i did teh impossible! Really? You call replying to the OP, the list AND a 3rd party (me) 'private'? Indeed, Reindl did not reply to the list, as claimed; You would be mistaken. See the attached original email (with all headers intact). You can see it was addressed to the list, and CC'd to myself and m...@junc.eu. Charles, I have no evidence in my mail server logs that any failed attempt was made to deliver such a mail. More significantly, take a look at the mailing list archive: http://lists.roundcube.net/pipermail/users/2014-January/thread.html Reindl's posting does not appear there! Or click on this one, and then "previous message": http://lists.roundcube.net/pipermail/users/2014-January/010302.html Goes to Benny's. I am looking at the .eml attachment (thanks for that) as raw text in a text editor and *do* see the To:. Message-ID: <52D970BB.9030309@...> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 19:04:43 +0100 From: Reindl Harald Organization: the lounge interactive design User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roundcube Users mailing list CC: me@..., CMarcus@... (I occluded the domain parts of sensitive e-mail addresses with ... in case the list archiver fails to do it in the above context.) Looks like the list blocked this, perhaps because of the CC: lines; if so, how deplorable. It did fool Reindl into thinking he's doing the impossible, though. :) ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On 2014-01-17 2:12 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: On 17.01.2014 10:10, Charles Marcus wrote: On 2014-01-17 1:04 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 17.01.2014 18:58, schrieb Benny Pedersen: and RCU maillist now makes it impossible to reply private :( really? look i did teh impossible! Really? You call replying to the OP, the list AND a 3rd party (me) 'private'? Indeed, Reindl did not reply to the list, as claimed; You would be mistaken. See the attached original email (with all headers intact). You can see it was addressed to the list, and CC'd to myself and m...@junc.eu. --- Begin Message --- Am 17.01.2014 18:58, schrieb Benny Pedersen: > Charles Marcus skrev den 2014-01-16 20:27: >> On 2014-01-15 1:54 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: >>> thunderbird need a plugin to make it work, roundcube it just works default >> >> Thunderbird has had a proper 'Reply-To-List' button/feature for a long >> time now.\ > > and RCU maillist now makes it impossible to reply private :( really? look i did teh impossible! did someone break the CTRL and the C key out of your keyboard? > if i wanted to reply to maillist i know with button to press on that must be why so many people after get 3 replies in a thread switch to a private communication on so many mailing-lists these are the ones which are too dumb for C&P and so protected from themself while others can handle their mail-client signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature --- End Message --- ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On 17.01.2014 11:15, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 17.01.2014 20:12, schrieb Kaz Kylheku: On 17.01.2014 10:10, Charles Marcus wrote: On 2014-01-17 1:04 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 17.01.2014 18:58, schrieb Benny Pedersen: and RCU maillist now makes it impossible to reply private :( really? look i did teh impossible! Really? You call replying to the OP, the list AND a 3rd party (me) 'private'? Indeed, Reindl did not reply to the list, as claimed; or at least so I'm led to suspect, based on not having received the post you're replying to, keeping in mind that absence of evidence doesn't proves absence. (Perhaps there is a list posting, hitherto delayed as far as delivery to me.) Going with this hypothesis that there is no list posting, I'm guessing that Benny was on the To: and you were Cc:-d. Check the headers. However he did it, it was not done by using a simple Reply function, but by manual editing of the To: and Cc: correct - and that is far away from "impossible" there is no need to reply-all with a single click there is no need to care about non-subscribers there is no need to not reply only to the list and where you need it you can do it manually period! There is no need for mail user agents; you can just telnet to port 25 of your upstream SMTP server, authenticate yourself (use a calculator if necessary for any challenge-response stuff). Then do your "mail to: ...", "rcpt from: ...", "data ..." and so on. Type the arbitrary headers you want and body, and off you go. Yes, a strict interpretation of a claim that something is "impossible" is obviously false. ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On 17.01.2014 10:10, Charles Marcus wrote: On 2014-01-17 1:04 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 17.01.2014 18:58, schrieb Benny Pedersen: and RCU maillist now makes it impossible to reply private :( really? look i did teh impossible! Really? You call replying to the OP, the list AND a 3rd party (me) 'private'? Indeed, Reindl did not reply to the list, as claimed; or at least so I'm led to suspect, based on not having received the post you're replying to, keeping in mind that absence of evidence doesn't proves absence. (Perhaps there is a list posting, hitherto delayed as far as delivery to me.) Going with this hypothesis that there is no list posting, I'm guessing that Benny was on the To: and you were Cc:-d. Check the headers. However he did it, it was not done by using a simple Reply function, but by manual editing of the To: and Cc:. ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On 2014-01-17 1:04 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 17.01.2014 18:58, schrieb Benny Pedersen: and RCU maillist now makes it impossible to reply private :( really? look i did teh impossible! Really? You call replying to the OP, the list AND a 3rd party (me) 'private'? ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
Charles Marcus skrev den 2014-01-16 20:27: On 2014-01-15 1:54 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: thunderbird need a plugin to make it work, roundcube it just works default Thunderbird has had a proper 'Reply-To-List' button/feature for a long time now.\ and RCU maillist now makes it impossible to reply private :( if i wanted to reply to maillist i know with button to press on, as is now it does not matter :( and thunderbird nicely add @ into body content for senders that dont have a signature with @ respectfull ! ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 18:24 -0800, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > NB> [I]t annoys me greatly that people find the need to reply directly > NB> as well as a list, I mean we *are* all on the same list, so we will > *all* > NB> yes, including intended recipient, get the post, do people think > that > NB> sending it directly will get read sooner? > > It should perhaps have asked: what is it that you suspect these people > who > have this "need" are doing, exactly? I mean, step by step. > Dont quite get you there, but its pretty simple, we are on a list, having an open discussion, if you reply to me, or I, you, then it should go by the list, on this list very simple, its configured correctly by having reply-to set, to the list, problem does not exist, if you reply, or reply-all, at least when I do in evolution, it only sends to lists. some clients and free mail providers, it sends to list, and to the author on reply-all evolution does allow reply to list if I hit control-l for those brain dead lists that do not set reply-to headers, if in that case you hit reply-all to get it to list, yes, else reply, direct to sender. AFAIC, list posts are like usenet, if you partake in a public discussion then your reply should go public, you may give an answer to a real sticky problem, no point in only one person getting the answer, it should be on-list so others are aware, and also it can be archived so others with same problem in future can find answer. If you think your reply is not fit for list, or, you may want information you are not willing to make public (like for example your domain name, or a hostname) then it is acceptable to reply directly with that information, but any follows afterwards, should be back onlist. No one would be having this discussion if list owners configured their lists correctly (as Thomas has done here with users@) > > RH> > the opposite is true such users *do not* want both copies > > NB> Another rare occasion where I agree with Harald, > > But these two copies are simply the consequence of someone > doing Reply All (which Mr. Harald thinks is a bad idea, at least in > connection with mailing lists) and the list neglecting > to filter out the duplication. This is more the clients fault (as above), and also agree, user laziness > So that is where I got the idea that > you don't agree with Reply All for mailing list discussions, > in expressing the agreement above! See? > if it does reply to list and poster, then I do disagree with it. > > > The assumption that "we are in the same list" only holds when all > > > the recipients of the message are subscribers of the list (because it > > > rejects posts > > > > and if they are not, they become irrelevant (another pet hate, carry > > out *general discussions* across multiple lists) > > I don't quite see what you mean there. It's possible to have an on-topic > discussion that isn't cross-posted, which involves decently behaving > non-subscribers, right? > I was talking about cross-posting to multiple lists being bad idea in general discussions for the very reason you point out. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On 16.01.2014 17:27, Noel Butler wrote: On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 16:40 -0800, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 16.01.2014 16:02, Noel Butler wrote: > > The vast majority of MUA software on the planet has only Reply and > Reply All. Those users are using Reply All, so as to keep it a group > discussion. Where did I say we needed another reply-x_function? > "Reply All" has a standard, decades old behavior, and mailing list > robots are designed around the assumption that it is used. Where did I say it wasn't? > you seem to be pretty crash hot at putting words into peoples mouths > when they did say no such thing, keep on track with my comments and > not the comments of others when replying to me, else dont waste your > time, or mine, trying to force yor options down others throat when it > is not the content I brought to the discussion. Okay, whoa! Sorry. I certainly don't want to put words into people's mouths; I almost think you're confusing me with out belligerent friend. Rewinding, then, and returning then to your original comment: NB> [I]t annoys me greatly that people find the need to reply directly NB> as well as a list, I mean we *are* all on the same list, so we will *all* NB> yes, including intended recipient, get the post, do people think that NB> sending it directly will get read sooner? It should perhaps have asked: what is it that you suspect these people who have this "need" are doing, exactly? I mean, step by step. My intent above was not to insinuate that you said something you didn't say but only to hypothesize how people end up doing that. (Are you talking about people actually posting something twice to different destinations? Or replying to you directly and CC'ing the list?) You said that in response to RH> > the opposite is true such users *do not* want both copies NB> Another rare occasion where I agree with Harald, But these two copies are simply the consequence of someone doing Reply All (which Mr. Harald thinks is a bad idea, at least in connection with mailing lists) and the list neglecting to filter out the duplication. So that is where I got the idea that you don't agree with Reply All for mailing list discussions, in expressing the agreement above! See? > The assumption that "we are in the same list" only holds when all > the recipients of the message are subscribers of the list (because it > rejects posts and if they are not, they become irrelevant (another pet hate, carry out *general discussions* across multiple lists) I don't quite see what you mean there. It's possible to have an on-topic discussion that isn't cross-posted, which involves decently behaving non-subscribers, right? (To spare you future bother, I hereby acknowledge that you never said it *wasn't* possible and I'm not putting words in your mouth.) ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 16:40 -0800, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 16.01.2014 16:02, Noel Butler wrote: > > The vast majority of MUA software on the planet has only Reply and > Reply All. Those users are using Reply All, so as to keep it a group > discussion. > Where did I say we needed another reply-x_function? > "Reply All" has a standard, decades old behavior, and mailing list > robots are designed around the assumption that it is used. > Where did I say it wasn't? you seem to be pretty crash hot at putting words into peoples mouths when they did say no such thing, keep on track with my comments and not the comments of others when replying to me, else dont waste your time, or mine, trying to force yor options down others throat when it is not the content I brought to the discussion. > The assumption that "we are in the same list" only holds when all the > recipients of the message are subscribers of the list (because it > rejects posts and if they are not, they become irrelevant (another pet hate, carry out *general discussions* across multiple lists) > > Reply All does the right thing in all circumstances. Mailing list > robots know that it's being used and process things intelligently. > Never said it didnt, there you go again... > The new-fangled Reply List is nonstandard, and makes assumptions about > how lists are configured. As Ben Schmidt has noted, it is useful in > specific I made no comment on reply-list, so I wont bother entertaining you with any response on that. > > Not always, this account for instance sorts by list, anything not > > associate with a list-id or x-been-there, gets sent to an x-blah > > folder right at the end, so my inbox stays pretty empty, and your > > direct messages may not get read for weeks, as I liken it to a > > second spam folder :) > > > There are two good ways to sort list-related discussions into folders. > If the list postings have some subject line tag like [RCU], you can > use that. > Good grief, who uses subject for filtering in 2014, yes, in 1994 I did, like most, use it, but spammers quickly learned and adopted, so we adapted and passed that over decades ago. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On 16.01.2014 16:02, Noel Butler wrote: > On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 08:35 +1100, Ben Schmidt wrote: > >> On 16/01/14 7:59 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> Am 15.01.2014 21:43, schrieb Ben Schmidt: Another is that sometimes people have direct copies delivered to their inbox, but copies via the list filtered into a folder. Such users want both copies. >>> >>> the opposite is true such users *do not* want both copies > > Another rare occasion where I agree with Harald, it annoys me greatly that > people find the need to reply directly as well as a list, I mean we *are* all > on the same list, so we will *all* , yes, including intended recipient, get > the post, do people think that sending it directly will get read sooner? This is not the consequence of anyone's "need". Do not assume that people are doing something you don't like or understand out of their "need". The vast majority of MUA software on the planet has only Reply and Reply All. Those users are using Reply All, so as to keep it a group discussion. "Reply All" has a standard, decades old behavior, and mailing list robots are designed around the assumption that it is used. The assumption that "we are in the same list" only holds when all the recipients of the message are subscribers of the list (because it rejects posts from nonsubscribers). Such a policy is made necessary by spammers. Traditionally, a subscriber of a mailing list is not one who wishes to post to it, but one who wishes to be in the loop on all new postings. There currently isn't any fully reliable way for the MUA to know who is a subscriber and who isn't; only the list robot knows. Reply All does the right thing in all circumstances. Mailing list robots know that it's being used and process things intelligently. The new-fangled Reply List is nonstandard, and makes assumptions about how lists are configured. As Ben Schmidt has noted, it is useful in specific circumstances, not as a "go to" button for replying to any posting on any kind of mailing list. > Not always, this account for instance sorts by list, anything not associate > with a list-id or x-been-there, gets sent to an x-blah folder right at the > end, so my inbox stays pretty empty, and your direct messages may not get > read for weeks, as I liken it to a second spam folder There are two good ways to sort list-related discussions into folders. If the list postings have some subject line tag like [RCU], you can use that. A way which does not rely on this subject line hack is this: have your rule look for the address of the list in the Cc: or To: In other words, whenever a given list is one of the recipients of a message, that message can be deemed as being related to that list and shunted to the appropriate folder. This works great for both list replies and direct replies. Yes, if you use list-specific headers to do your sorting, something will happen that you might not necessarily like: direct replies go to your inbox, and only list copies to the list folder. But, this may also be why someone like Ben Schmidt (for whom I obviously cannot speak) may want those two copies. He might want the robot-generated list copies to go to the list folder for reference, where all the threads are intact in their entirety, and those messages in which he is personally mentioned to go to his Inbox, where they get his attention immediately. He can delete the Inbox copies after reading them and replying to some of them, yet have the discussion intact in the appropriate folder. <>___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 08:35 +1100, Ben Schmidt wrote: > On 16/01/14 7:59 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 15.01.2014 21:43, schrieb Ben Schmidt: > >> Another is that sometimes people have direct copies delivered to > >> their inbox, but copies via the list filtered into a folder. Such > >> users want both copies. > > > > the opposite is true such users *do not* want both copies > Another rare occasion where I agree with Harald, it annoys me greatly that people find the need to reply directly as well as a list, I mean we *are* all on the same list, so we will *all* , yes, including intended recipient, get the post, do people think that sending it directly will get read sooner? Not always, this account for instance sorts by list, anything not associate with a list-id or x-been-there, gets sent to an x-blah folder right at the end, so my inbox stays pretty empty, and your direct messages may not get read for weeks, as I liken it to a second spam folder :) in some cases, some lit software can be configured to not send a list post to you if you are in the To/CC field, this becomes extra steps to reply to list, I have to drag and drop the darn message into the list "folder" where I prefer to keep list posts for history until I decide to shrink it. Its also a pet hate of mine where lists are not configured to reply-list only, Thomas has correctly set this one up, pitty a few more didn't follow his lead. > I am such a user, and I want both. > Why? most mailing list software configured correctly with MDA's send just as quick as a direct, the list server I run, (not now but a few years ago) ran a usenet-mailing list gw, some of those lists had 5K members, and a post would take all of 25 seconds to be sent to everyone. so, I fail to see the point of why you want two copies of the same thing, you either send a reply to hte list for all to see, or, send a direct message to the poster if your comments are not fit for general (list) consumption, not both. <> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On 2014-01-15 1:54 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: thunderbird need a plugin to make it work, roundcube it just works default Thunderbird has had a proper 'Reply-To-List' button/feature for a long time now.\ On 2014-01-15 3:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: Reply should reply to the sender: the person on the From: line, period. If the SENDER wants replies to their post to go to them *only*, they should explicitly set their REPLY-TO. Otherwise, the vast majority (90+%?) of *discussion* lists should keep the traffic *on the list*. That is what 'Reply-To-List' is for, and you must intentionally use it (I use the keybd shortcut CTRL-SHIFT-L). Yes, some discussion lists allow posts from non-posters, and as long as the poster specifically requests to be CC'd, I will *try* to remember to do that if I reply... but I also don't care too much about it, because to me it seems a bit lazy and rude for someone to bother an entire list of folks to ask a question, and expect everyone *else* to deal with their laziness by having to treat their posts differently, rather than just subscribing to the list, even if only for the time it takes to get their question answered. -- Best regards, Charles ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On 15.01.2014 12:43, Ben Schmidt wrote: As the maintainer of a mailing-list manager, and as a user of mailing lists, I thought I would chip in. I think there are uses for all three scenarios: (1) reply to sender (only), (2) reply to list (only), (3) reply to all (sender, list and any CCs). I'm not unconditionally opposed to change; far from it. But e-mail as such has gotten along very well (including mailing lists) without this "reply list". It has no place in a mail client for the average end user. (2) is useful for replies to the list. It can be particularly handy for continuing a conversation where the OP, who started the thread, was not the sender of the mail you are replying to, or if you are going a little off topic. The first part of this I don't quite understand.. Replies to people who are not OP occur all the time in mailing list threads; why would you want to break the loop just because you're not replying directly to OP. The OP is not some appointed ruler of the thread. The second part is clear: the discussion topic has drifted, and basically you want to make something like a new post to the list, but quote parts of the old thread. However, the average user will just think, "this message is list-related, so reply to list must be the right button since it has 'list' in its name". People understand the standard duo: "Reply (just to the person)" and "Reply (all)". Even that gets screwed up sometimes; people end up sending what was intended to be a private comment to everyone. "Reply To List (Only)" requires a bit of mailing list education. At the very least there has to be a warning dialog If you reply only to the mailing list f...@example.com, your reply will not reach the sender or some of the addresses in the Cc: list if they happen not to be subscribers of the mailing list. Use Reply All if you suspect some of the parties who should stay included in the discussion are not subscribers. [ ] do not show this message again [Switch to Reply All] [Cancel] [Continue] Ideally what mail clients should do is provide a single reply command with a "reply assisting wizard", at least in their newbie mode: something which guides the users toward making exactly the right kind of reply, explaining the implications of every choice. As soon as you have two or more similar reply commands, and a program which just does what it is told, mismatches between intent and action are possible. At the end of the day, every mailing list is different, because every community is different, and different groups will have different uses for these different features. Exactly. And so how does the mail *client* know and fit in? I think it makes sense to offer them all--it is clear enough what they do--and let people simply not use ones they don't need. That's the rub. How do the users know what they need and don't need? This is a great approach for engineering tools, programming API's and so on. Give `em the full orthogonal set of functions, and a reference manual. It's not necessarily a good recipe for usability though for the computer consuming public. Good user interfaces (1985 Apple mac, etc) are not usually based on this "dump the functionality on them and let them sort it out". Well, sometimes they are--e.g. vector graphics or painting program with a big "tool box" of goodies--but there is an Undo command so you can safely explore everything. There is no Undo in e-mail. I think it can work if the program can provide some very pertinent, yet unobtrusive assistance in all the critical moments in every important use case. ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
so there is no solution satisfy all I agree entirely. finally *that* is no valid reason for mail duplicates Equally, it is not a valid reason to filter them. We need to recognise people and communities are different, that both behaviours are useful, and valid, and that people who want one kind of behaviour or another are not stupid. the reason someone has sieve filters for lists is that he want filter out list-traffic and not mix it with business email which has a completly different priority in read Except if a list reply is directly relevant to him, in which case he hopes, or even asks, the list to explicitly CC him on any replies so they come to his inbox as higher priority mail. then he knows the subject and filters *that* thread so what If he does this regularly, this is a high-effort option he probably does not want to take. It's possible, but it's suboptimal. There is nothing wrong with him wanting to do it differently. In Thunderbird, the "Reply All" button turns into a "Reply List" button when a mailing list is detected no, i have three buttons * reply * reply-all * reply-list guess why - because it are 3 different actions and reasons Screen shot attached for your examination. I don't know why it is different; maybe because my screen is smaller than yours, or because the platform is different because i take the time to configure my software in mozilla products you can configure your toolbar simple by drag&drop Well that tells us absolutely nothing about what I wrote about, which was the trends in mail clients, does it? I agree with you though, it makes sense for them to be separate. I usually use the keyboard shortcuts, which are separate. Best regards, Ben. ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
As the maintainer of a mailing-list manager, and as a user of mailing lists, I thought I would chip in. I think there are uses for all three scenarios: (1) reply to sender (only), (2) reply to list (only), (3) reply to all (sender, list and any CCs). (1) is useful for private replies. (2) is useful for replies to the list. It can be particularly handy for continuing a conversation where the OP, who started the thread, was not the sender of the mail you are replying to, or if you are going a little off topic. (3) is useful for keeping non-subscribers in the loop, or for providing a direct copy to the sender. It is not true that all MLMs, or even that all decent MLMs, do recipient filtering to avoid duplicates of this kind. There are a number of reasons for not doing so. Two were already mentioned: it's not really possible in light of things such as BCC and multiple addresses reaching the same mailbox. Another is that sometimes people have direct copies delivered to their inbox, but copies via the list filtered into a folder. Such users want both copies. When a Reply-To header is set to the list address, all three kinds of reply will do the same thing. I generally think this is annoying, but it does have its uses. Nevertheless, list admins sometimes feel pressured into using this Reply-To technique, even when they don't want to, because of the lack of support for "Reply List" of mail clients. The trend seems to be to start including a Reply List feature. In Thunderbird, the "Reply All" button turns into a "Reply List" button when a mailing list is detected, but you can still click the edge of button to open a context menu and choose Reply All. Other interfaces, such as Gmail, I believe, have a "Reply to list" link. IMHO, a really smart client would recognise if a Reply-To header is set to the list address and make Reply List the default, but still allow a Reply (Sender) feature which ignores the Reply-To header. This could save users a bit of time copying and pasting when they want to reply to the sender of a mailing list with Reply-To set. At the end of the day, every mailing list is different, because every community is different, and different groups will have different uses for these different features. I think it makes sense to offer them all--it is clear enough what they do--and let people simply not use ones they don't need. A number of users, such as me, would regularly use all three. Best regards, Ben. P.S. I would value a constructive discussion of this topic, without name-calling. Assuming, and much less saying, that people who disagree with you are inferior in some way is not going to get anywhere. ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On 15.01.2014 09:28, Charles Marcus wrote: On 2014-01-14 7:46 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: I know about the "Reply List" thing; I neglected to mention, in fact, that I tried both "Reply All" and manually invoking "Reply List", with identical results. Look; "Reply All" is obviously doing the right thing now as I post this reply. It's going to you, Arne, and Cc: to the RCU list! So does that mean that it did, or that it didn't detect a mailing list? (Is this feature tested only against the RCU list?) I don't agree with "Reply All" doing a "Reply List" if a mailing list is detected. The proper way to reply to a mailing list is "Reply All". Which means ... THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR A "REPLY LIST" MISFEATURE. Au contraire... 'Reply-To-List' is extremely important, and extremely useful. However, I believe that invoking it when 'Reply-All' is used is just plain broken. It should only be invoked when the ordinary 'Reply' is used. Reply should reply to the sender: the person on the From: line, period. If Reply turns into Reply List, then the sender will not necessarily receive the reply. He or she will receive the list copy---if he or she is subscribed to the list. Mailing lists can and some do allow posts from non-subscribers. Also, mailing list discussions can have one or more non-subscribers in the loop. For instance, say I fire off a question to some technical list. I could CC: my boss on that. The replies should also CC: to my boss. I may or may not be a subscriber of the list; the boss certainly isn't. People who don't agree with these productive and reasonable uses of mailing lists are dickheads and I don't want to listen to a single thing I have to say. At least, not until they subscribe to both my ears individually, fill in three catpchas and validate their e-mail. Reply-All should remain Reply-All. FOR USERS WHO REALLY WANT THIS, THE BUTTON SHOULD BE CALLED "CLICK HERE TO REPLY IN A MORONIC WAY IF YOU THINK THAT RFC STANDS FOR SOME SORT OF FRIED CHICKEN FRANCHISE". What is moronic is someone clicking 'Reply-All' on a discussion list and sending duplicate emails to the sender. Reply-To-List solves that problem nicely - for anyone with half a brain that learns how to use it. This alleged problem is a myth. I've always used Reply All in mailing lists and never ran into this. The reason is, doh, that anything that can be called a viable mailing list manager squashes duplicates. It pays attention to what is on the To: and Cc: headers, and reconciles that with the distribution list. GNU Mailman actually makes it a per-user option. If you're on a GNU Mailman list and are getting duplicates: "list copies" as well as direct replies, then turn off the list copies (and ask the maintainer to make the 'off" setting a default for new users). Any remaining duplicate issues are something weird, like someone using Bcc: so the mailing list robot doesn't know the other recipients. Or bugs in the mailing list manager such as, oh, your registered mail differs in case from the one in the Cc: list, and the software uses a case-sensitive string comparison when looking for dupes. ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
Charles Marcus skrev den 2014-01-15 18:28: Sadly, there are far too many moronic users, even on the technical side of things. thunderbird users more or less ?, roundcube users never seen the problem imho thunderbird need a plugin to make it work, roundcube it just works default ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On 2014-01-14 7:46 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: I know about the "Reply List" thing; I neglected to mention, in fact, that I tried both "Reply All" and manually invoking "Reply List", with identical results. Look; "Reply All" is obviously doing the right thing now as I post this reply. It's going to you, Arne, and Cc: to the RCU list! So does that mean that it did, or that it didn't detect a mailing list? (Is this feature tested only against the RCU list?) I don't agree with "Reply All" doing a "Reply List" if a mailing list is detected. The proper way to reply to a mailing list is "Reply All". Which means ... *There is absolutely no need for a "Reply List" misfeature.* Au contraire... 'Reply-To-List' is extremely important, and extremely useful. However, I believe that invoking it when 'Reply-All' is used is just plain broken. It should only be invoked when the ordinary 'Reply' is used. Reply-All should remain Reply-All. *For users who really want this, the button should be called "Click here to reply in a moronic way if you think that RFC stands for some sort of fried chicken franchise".* What is moronic is someone clicking 'Reply-All' on a discussion list and sending duplicate emails to the sender. Reply-To-List solves that problem nicely - for anyone with half a brain that learns how to use it. Sadly, there are far too many moronic users, even on the technical side of things. -- Best regards, Charles ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
Hello: I thing RCU list uses mailman as list manager (http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/) Reply-To header is controled by config option "reply_goes_to_list" with defaults to not to add/modify Reply-To header. This setting is strongly recommended by mailman developpers. Still, I suppose it has benefits in some situations; it makes easier for an admin to make people to always reply to the list. In first paragraph of http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html you can read this: " Beware! Reply-To: munging is considered a religious issue and the policies you set here can ignite some of the most heated off-topic flame wars on your mailing lists. We'll try to stay as agnostic as possible, but our biases may still peak through. " Definitely true. Best regards. El 15/01/2014 2:14, Kaz Kylheku escribió: Wake up and look at this: Reply-To: Roundcube Users mailing list The RCU mailing list stamps this idiocy on everything that passes through it. The mailing list for mail-related software is doing Reply-To munging. What's wrong with this picture? That explains why the same people think it's a good idea to have a "Reply List" button. On 14.01.2014 17:02, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 15.01.2014 01:46, schrieb Kaz Kylheku: I don't agree with "Reply All" doing a "Reply List" if a mailing list is detected. The proper way to reply to a mailing list is "Reply All". Which means ... *There is absolutely no need for a "Reply List" misfeature.* *For users who really want this, the button should be called "Click here to reply in a moronic way if you think that RFC stands for some sort of fried chicken franchise".* WHICH RFC ARE YOU REFERING? THERE ARE *MANY* IN CASE OF EMAIL STANDARDS YOU ARE THE MORON! Someone who thinks that RFC stands for some kind of R. Fried Chicken is obviously ignorant of all of them. ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users -- -- Juan Carlos Sanchez Hernandez Responsable de Seguridad y Correo Electronico Servicio de Planificacion Informatica y Comunicaciones Universidad Politecnica de Madrid Rectorado Avda. Ramiro de Maeztu 7 28040 Madrid -- ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
Wake up and look at this: Reply-To: Roundcube Users mailing list The RCU mailing list stamps this idiocy on everything that passes through it. The mailing list for mail-related software is doing Reply-To munging. What's wrong with this picture? That explains why the same people think it's a good idea to have a "Reply List" button. On 14.01.2014 17:02, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 15.01.2014 01:46, schrieb Kaz Kylheku: > >> I don't agree with "Reply All" doing a "Reply List" if a mailing list is >> detected. The proper way to reply to a mailing list is "Reply All". Which >> means ... *There is absolutely no need for a "Reply List" misfeature.* *For >> users who really want this, the button should be called "Click here to reply >> in a moronic way if you think that RFC stands for some sort of fried chicken >> franchise".* > > WHICH RFC ARE YOU REFERING? > THERE ARE *MANY* IN CASE OF EMAIL STANDARDS > YOU ARE THE MORON! Someone who thinks that RFC stands for some kind of R. Fried Chicken is obviously ignorant of all of them. ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
Of course, doh, that's because Arne's message was not from the list manager; but directly to me! (Which is the correct way to do things). On 14.01.2014 16:46, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > Look; "Reply All" is obviously doing the right thing now as I post this > reply. It's going to you, Arne, and Cc: to the RCU list! ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
I know about the "Reply List" thing; I neglected to mention, in fact, that I tried both "Reply All" and manually invoking "Reply List", with identical results. Look; "Reply All" is obviously doing the right thing now as I post this reply. It's going to you, Arne, and Cc: to the RCU list! So does that mean that it did, or that it didn't detect a mailing list? (Is this feature tested only against the RCU list?) I don't agree with "Reply All" doing a "Reply List" if a mailing list is detected. The proper way to reply to a mailing list is "Reply All". Which means ... THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR A "REPLY LIST" MISFEATURE. FOR USERS WHO REALLY WANT THIS, THE BUTTON SHOULD BE CALLED "CLICK HERE TO REPLY IN A MORONIC WAY IF YOU THINK THAT RFC STANDS FOR SOME SORT OF FRIED CHICKEN FRANCHISE". On 14.01.2014 16:30, Arne Berglund wrote: > On 2014-01-14 16:12, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Anyone had the following problem? >> >> When replying to a new mailing list posting with "reply all", the reply goes >> only To: the mailing list. >> >> Expected behavior: To: the person, Cc: to the mailing list. >> >> The message in question has no Reply-To: header or anything of the sort. The >> relevant headers are just: >> >> From: u...@gmail.com >> >> To: mailingl...@example.com >> >> I'm a subscriber of the mailing list. I hit Reply All, and I get only one >> address: "mailingl...@example.com". >> >> Unless there is a Reply-To: header, the From: address must be one of the To: >> recipients! > > Default behavior of the Reply-all button is to reply-list if a list is > detected. Note the small drop arrow next to the Reply-all button. > > My organization found that behavior very annoying, so we made some feature > requests. The devs implemented my favorite in version 1.0-beta - > http://trac.roundcube.net/ticket/1488734 [1] > > Assuming you are not using the beta version, you can tweak the code to > eliminate this behavior globally if you wish. It's documented in the ticket > above. Links: -- [1] http://trac.roundcube.net/ticket/1488734 ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
On 2014-01-14 16:12, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > Hi All, > > Anyone had the following problem? > > When replying to a new mailing list posting with "reply all", the reply goes > only To: the mailing list. > > Expected behavior: To: the person, Cc: to the mailing list. > > The message in question has no Reply-To: header or anything of the sort. The > relevant headers are just: > > From: u...@gmail.com > > To: mailingl...@example.com > > I'm a subscriber of the mailing list. I hit Reply All, and I get only one > address: "mailingl...@example.com". > > Unless there is a Reply-To: header, the From: address must be one of the To: > recipients! Default behavior of the Reply-all button is to reply-list if a list is detected. Note the small drop arrow next to the Reply-all button. My organization found that behavior very annoying, so we made some feature requests. The devs implemented my favorite in version 1.0-beta - http://trac.roundcube.net/ticket/1488734 [1] Assuming you are not using the beta version, you can tweak the code to eliminate this behavior globally if you wish. It's documented in the ticket above. -- Arne Berglund System Administrator, Internet Services Lane Education Service District Eugene, OR Links: -- [1] http://trac.roundcube.net/ticket/1488734 ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
[RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
Hi All, Anyone had the following problem? When replying to a new mailing list posting with "reply all", the reply goes only To: the mailing list. Expected behavior: To: the person, Cc: to the mailing list. The message in question has no Reply-To: header or anything of the sort. The relevant headers are just: From: u...@gmail.com To: mailingl...@example.com I'm a subscriber of the mailing list. I hit Reply All, and I get only one address: "mailingl...@example.com". Unless there is a Reply-To: header, the From: address must be one of the To: recipients! ___ Roundcube Users mailing list users@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
