On Sat, 22 Nov 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/22/08 06:15, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
I thought kernel hackers were uber-geeks. How can they not implement
decent mail filtering? If you use Mutt, you take upon yourself the
responsibility to set up a server-side filter, and if you
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:45:33PM -0500, Celejar wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:15:25 -0700
Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Answers are some from people who are still learning but mostly from
people who have very little to learn from following this list*. Really
good
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 03:44:08AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Chris Bannister wrote:
Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the
point in not CCing on a closed list.
For the same reasons. Whether the list is open or closed is irrelevant to
the harm that CCing
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:23:43PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote:
Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the
point in not CCing on a closed list.
Cc'ing on a
On Monday 24 November 2008 02:31:53 Chris Bannister wrote:
True, I uderstand that, but my thoughts are concerning newbies who post
to the list and not being subscribed won't see a reply to their post.
How many archives for the list exist? They have methods of finding the
reply; often in
On Monday 24 November 2008 02:32:14 Chris Bannister wrote:
What harm? What's worse; rec a CC or missing out on crucial
help/information?
That depends, whose perspective?
We are talking about newbies here.
No, we're talking about the list in general and how a policy to coddle
newbies
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 06:18:36PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Monday 24 November 2008 02:32:14 Chris Bannister wrote:
What harm? What's worse; rec a CC or missing out on crucial
help/information?
That depends, whose perspective?
We are talking about newbies here.
No, we're
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:15:25 -0700
Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Answers are some from people who are still learning but mostly from
people who have very little to learn from following this list*. Really
good answers come from a very small group of special people who set
the
Steve Lamb (2008-11-22 17:59 -0800) wrote:
None of the situations you cited are compelling enough to warrant the
complete duplication of every message the list server sends out. Not a
one.
That's good because my point was and is elsewhere. I'm not trying to
compel anybody about certain
On Sunday 23 November 2008 03:09:04 Teemu Likonen wrote:
It's usually about using the correct clients and
configuration, mailing list configuration, Reply-To and Mail-Followup-To
usage etc. So far nobody has managed to convince everybody that their
system is the best one. Hence my point: there
Steve Lamb (2008-11-23 04:14 -0800) wrote:
Problem is that this one can be quantified in what is harmful. It
isn't a matter of preferences but of facts.
That's not preference, that's simple mathematics.
I guess my suggestions failed. :-)
This is the last one: I suggest that you try to see
Teemu Likonen wrote:
This is the last one: I suggest that you try to see norms of
communication in social terms and concepts, not mathematical. The
email-using world, as I see it, is mainly social.
What you're missing is that I am seeing them in social terms as well. I
see them in terms
On Fri,21.Nov.08, 17:59:30, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/21/08 14:23, Don Armstrong wrote:
[snip]
Because people who are subscribed to the list don't require extra
copies of mails. [And since anyone who wants a copy can request it
using MFT: or manually, it's perfectly fine.]
MFT?
Chris Bannister wrote:
Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the
point in not CCing on a closed list.
For the same reasons. Whether the list is open or closed is irrelevant to
the harm that CCing people unbidden causes. A list being open or closed is
also
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008, Steve Lamb wrote:
Chris Bannister wrote:
Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the
point in not CCing on a closed list.
For the same reasons. Whether the list is open or closed is irrelevant to
the harm that CCing people unbidden
On Saturday 22 November 2008 04:15:42 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Actually, to be very blunt: CCing people is absolutely the only way to deal
with massive ammounts of email and very-high-traffic lists when you *care*
about not ignoring email that you should have read.
That is
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
If you want an example of a CC policy radically different from Debian's,
take a look at the development mailinglists for the Linux kernel and all
related projects. There, the policy is that you are to *always* CC everyone
that should (or might even remotely
On 11/22/08 02:02, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Fri,21.Nov.08, 17:59:30, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/21/08 14:23, Don Armstrong wrote:
[snip]
Because people who are subscribed to the list don't require extra
copies of mails. [And since anyone who wants a copy can request it
using MFT: or manually,
On 11/22/08 06:15, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
[snip]
Actually, to be very blunt: CCing people is absolutely the only way to deal
with massive ammounts of email and very-high-traffic lists when you *care*
about not ignoring email that you should have read.
If you want an example of a CC
Ron Johnson wrote:
(Of course, even if you use a GUI, if you are a geek you should
implement fetchmail/getmail, an MTA, a spam filter and procmail or
mailfilter and IMAP, so that you can switch MUAs as easily as you switch
underwear, or even access your mail from across the LAN or even
On 11/22/08 09:10, Steve Lamb wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
(Of course, even if you use a GUI, if you are a geek you should
implement fetchmail/getmail, an MTA, a spam filter and procmail or
mailfilter and IMAP, so that you can switch MUAs as easily as you switch
underwear, or even access your mail
Steve Lamb (2008-11-22 04:40 -0800) wrote:
On Saturday 22 November 2008 04:15:42 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Actually, to be very blunt: CCing people is absolutely the only way
to deal with massive ammounts of email and very-high-traffic lists
when you *care* about not ignoring email
On Sat,22.Nov.08, 20:44:35, Teemu Likonen wrote:
1. Tell people to press the Reply button and configure mailing
list software to add Reply-To header which points to the list
address.
This goes against the standards (and you probably know it). One thing I
like about
On Saturday 22 November 2008 12:49:29 Andrei Popescu wrote:
Of the open-source mailers I know only Thunderbird/Icedove doesn't
support Reply-To-List by default. Claws-Mail even has a smart Reply
button that does Reply-To-List by default if it detects a list. Now it's
time for the webmails to
On Saturday 22 November 2008 09:39:12 Ron Johnson wrote:
Wear fewer clothes...
Nah, I change underwear once a day. Most days I move from my home machine
which is still on TBird to a work VM on which I test KMail. So 3 client
changes an average day vs. 1 underwear change. :)
--
On Saturday 22 November 2008 10:44:35 Teemu Likonen wrote:
Steve Lamb (2008-11-22 04:40 -0800) wrote:
That is absolute, 100% pure rubbish. This is solvable by technical
means, right now, today, if email client authors would just implement
a feature [...]
I think that being solvable is
On 11/22/08 19:47, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Saturday 22 November 2008 09:39:12 Ron Johnson wrote:
Wear fewer clothes...
Nah, I change underwear once a day. Most days I move from my home machine
which is still on TBird to a work VM on which I test KMail. So 3 client
changes an average day
On Saturday 22 November 2008 19:40:14 Ron Johnson wrote:
Don't wear underwear?
AKA, the commando geek! Certainly one I would hope is able to filter on
in-reply-to. ;)
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who can decide what they dream
PGP Key: 1FC01004 | and dream I
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:48:57AM +0100, s. keeling wrote:
On the other hand, there's a world full of Windows users out there who
know that top-posting is the right way to reply.
It's normally the minority of people which get it right, therefore if
you are in the majority you are probably
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:15:58PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
Chris Bannister wrote:
It makes more sense to either not allow posting unless subscribed or
have an open list but cc unless they explicitly request not be cc'd.
Can anyone explain why the current policy is sane?
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:27:47AM +0100, s. keeling wrote:
Chris Bannister [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:30:04AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
makes this mistake, though. And I seem to remember a few posts where it
was brought up that some users who post are not
On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote:
Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the
point in not CCing on a closed list.
Cc'ing on a closed list would be really stupid :)
It is also not really necessary to subscribe in order to read the
replies; they
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 07:12:55PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote:
Sorry, it doesn't explain why CCing is discouraged on an open list.
New posters should read the Code of Conduct? Listmasters, would you
consider adding a link to the CoC at
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 07:12:55PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote:
[snip]
New posters should read the Code of Conduct? Listmasters, would you
consider adding a link to the CoC at the bottom of list mails?
do we need more stuff on the bottom
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote:
Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the
point in not CCing on a closed list.
Cc'ing on a closed list would be really stupid :)
Actually, that's the one place
On Fri,21.Nov.08, 12:23:43, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote:
Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the
point in not CCing on a closed list.
Cc'ing on a closed list would
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 09:12:39AM -0900, Ken Irving wrote:
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Encoding: 7bit, Size: 0.2K --]
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 02:31:25PM -0800, Brian Marshall wrote:
Odd. I see the list signatures with mutt, but PGP signatures are
recognized for me.
Whoops, I just checked that message again and noticed that the list
signature wasn't added with the attached PGP signature. Sorry.
--
Brian
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:35:54 -0800
Brian Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Brian,
Whoops, I just checked that message again and noticed that the list
signature wasn't added with the attached PGP signature. Sorry.
There's some weirdness that results in it not always being displayed.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 02:35:54PM -0800, Brian Marshall wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 02:31:25PM -0800, Brian Marshall wrote:
Odd. I see the list signatures with mutt, but PGP signatures are
recognized for me.
Whoops, I just checked that message again and noticed that the list
signature
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:40:16PM +, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:35:54 -0800
Brian Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Brian,
Whoops, I just checked that message again and noticed that the list
signature wasn't added with the attached PGP signature. Sorry.
On 11/21/08 14:23, Don Armstrong wrote:
[snip]
Because people who are subscribed to the list don't require extra
copies of mails. [And since anyone who wants a copy can request it
using MFT: or manually, it's perfectly fine.]
MFT?
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
If you don't agree
On Wed,19.Nov.08, 14:02:37, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Wednesday 19 November 2008, Andrei Popescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote about 'Re: Q: List Policy':
On Mon,17.Nov.08, 22:03:20, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
It would be nice for the list to auto-respond to any HTML posting with
I'm
On 11/19/08 01:54, Steve Lamb wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
But since most users (and probably developers) of Tbird are on Windows,
they just don't have the same ethos as old-time midrange admins, and so
I'm just thanking $DEITY that the plugin system exists.
Even then there is a huge barrier
On Mon,17.Nov.08, 22:03:20, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
Well, there has to be some punishment for not following the rules, or
people won't follow them, right?
It would be nice for the list to auto-respond to any HTML posting with
a You've posted HTML, which is against list policy,
On Wednesday 19 November 2008, Andrei Popescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote about 'Re: Q: List Policy':
On Mon,17.Nov.08, 22:03:20, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
It would be nice for the list to auto-respond to any HTML posting with
I'm pretty sure you won't see something like this from Debian lists
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:38:36 -0600, Ron Johnson in gmane.linux.debian.user
wrote:
The only issue I see with it is that each line ends with a =20 and
that text MUAs might not filter that part out.
Yes I agree. It doesn't here on slrn. It would be nice if the quoted
printable could be turned
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:38:36AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/18/08 01:19, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Monday 17 November 2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)':
Your email, though text, is really a quoted
On 11/18/08 03:35, Ken Irving wrote:
[snip]
also for some MIME forms if the last one is visible. The list software
does not change, mung, or otherwise mess with message bodies other than
Well it should!
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
If you don't agree with me, you are worse than
Hi, Here is fact ...
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 01:43:53PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
I was fairly sure that the policy for this list, and most of the Debian
mailing lists was to NOT CC the poster in replies unless they requested
it. Is that correct?
See
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:43:49AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/18/08 03:35, Ken Irving wrote:
[snip]
also for some MIME forms if the last one is visible. The list software
does not change, mung, or otherwise mess with message bodies other than
Well it should!
On Tuesday 18 November 2008, S.D.Allen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'Re: Here's something
interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)':
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:38:36 -0600, Ron Johnson in gmane.linux.debian.user
wrote:
The only issue I see with it is that each line ends with a =20 and
that text
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:27:47AM +0100, s. keeling wrote:
Chris Bannister [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:30:04AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
I'm not subscribed, and haven't been for years. I read the list in
the nntp mail to news gateway (cf. Usenet). Don't assume
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:20:13PM EST, s. keeling wrote:
Chris Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Patrick Wiseman a écrit :
...
And why do you send message in text+HTML format to this list ? ;-)
Yeah .. it took me a while to figure out how I could get mutt to display
the text/plain
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm fine switching my messages to text/plain vs. multipart/signed by not=20
signing them or using an inline signature. I'm not fine with not being=20
able to send non-ASCII characters to the list.
What? Why? It's an email mailing list. Yeah,
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 11/18/08 01:19, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Monday 17 November 2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)':
Your email, though text, is really a quoted-printable attachment.
Tbird
Ken Irving [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:43:49AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/18/08 03:35, Ken Irving wrote:
[snip]
also for some MIME forms if the last one is visible. The list software
does not change, mung, or otherwise mess with message bodies other than
Well
Alex Samad [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:27:47AM +0100, s. keeling wrote:
Chris Bannister [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:30:04AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
I'm not subscribed, and haven't been for years. I read the list in
the nntp mail to
PROTECTED] wrote about 'Re: Here's something=20
interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)':
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:38:36 -0600, Ron Johnson in gmane.linux.debian.user=
=20
wrote:
The only issue I see with it is that each line ends with a =3D20 and
that text MUAs might not filter that part out
On Tuesday 18 November 2008, S.D.Allen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'Re: Here's something
interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)':
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:53:47 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. in
gmane.linux.debian.user wrote:
On Tuesday 18 November 2008, S.D.Allen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On 11/18/08 21:03, s. keeling wrote:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[snip]
Also, it might (or might not...) be a Tbird bug that it doesn't show
the UNSUBSCRIBE signature.
Tbird. I see the list sig also.
Silly man!!! Mozila apps have no bugs!!!
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
If
François Cerbelle wrote:
Yes, there is some text... But it is acceptable because it did not alter
neither what I wrote, nor the meaning of what I wrote.
It alters the contents of your message which is exactly what the post I
was replying to said should not happen. Now you're providing
s. keeling wrote:
Are we still waiting for killfiles in Mozilla (et al)'s nntp clients,
or did they finally get around to that?
Heck if I know. I never used killfiles. Slrn + scoring was all I needed.
Yeah, yeah, - is killing but it isn't confined to a single killfile. :D
--
Ron Johnson wrote:
But since most users (and probably developers) of Tbird are on Windows,
they just don't have the same ethos as old-time midrange admins, and so
I'm just thanking $DEITY that the plugin system exists.
Even then there is a huge barrier to entry. I would love to write a
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:30:04AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
makes this mistake, though. And I seem to remember a few posts where it
was brought up that some users who post are not subscribed. So, go
figure.
Catch 22 -- if they are not subscribed they will not be able to read
any .sig
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Bannister wrote:
It makes more sense to either not allow posting unless subscribed or
have an open list but cc unless they explicitly request not be cc'd.
Can anyone explain why the current policy is sane?
Maybe someone is in an
Patrick Wiseman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--=_Part_24413_25996402.1226805705201
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/15/08 13:43, Boyd
Bob Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:05:36 -0600, Ron Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On 11/16/08 00:38, Celejar wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:33:43 -0600
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The most common MUAs (and all webmail) don't allow Reply-to to be
Chris Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 02:27:28PM EST, François Cerbelle wrote:
Patrick Wiseman a écrit :
...
And why do you send message in text+HTML format to this list ? ;-)
Yeah .. it took me a while to figure out how I could get mutt to display
the text/plain
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ron Johnson wrote:
It isn't that difficult to create Reply-to-List functionality.
Tell that to the TBird developers. We're going on, what, 4 years now=
and
counting? :(
Are we still waiting for killfiles in Mozilla (et al)'s nntp clients,
or did
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 11/17/08 00:33, François Cerbelle wrote:
Steve Lamb a écrit :
Really? You believe that? *looks at the footer appended to
every message* Then, u, a header is the least of your
concerns. I look forward to your Don Quixote quest there, bub.
Chris Bannister [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:30:04AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
makes this mistake, though. And I seem to remember a few posts where it
was brought up that some users who post are not subscribed. So, go
figure.
Catch 22 -- if they are not subscribed
On Monday 17 November 2008, s. keeling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Re: Q: List Policy':
Hmm, tell that to the likes of Dan C in alt.os.linux.slackware, who
b*tch*s about people like you whose posts contain *two* sets of
sig-dashes; yours, and the list's. Notice, slrn helpfully made your
sig
On Monday 17 November 2008, s. keeling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Re: Q: List Policy':
Perhaps we need one of the listmasters to enforce the usage
guidelines? Post HTML or Cc: too often, and ...
Nah. Dumb idea.
Well, there has to be some punishment for not following the rules, or
people
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 17 November 2008, s. keeling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Re: Q: List Policy':
Perhaps we need one of the listmasters to enforce the usage
guidelines? Post HTML or Cc: too often, and ...
Nah
On Monday 17 November 2008, Patrick Wiseman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Re: Q: List Policy':
I used to be rabid about plain text emails
I'm not a rabid as I used to be; I'll even open the HTML from time to time.
Are there
clients sending emails which don't offer the alternative content
On 11/17/08 22:32, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
[snip]
Plus, even if the list policy is outdated, it is still *list policy* and
should be followed until changed.
By not listing any punishments for infractions, I think that they
specifically meant the Code of conduct to be followed on the
On 11/17/08 20:31, s. keeling wrote:
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ron Johnson wrote:
It isn't that difficult to create Reply-to-List functionality.
Tell that to the TBird developers. We're going on, what, 4 years now=
and
counting? :(
Are we still waiting for killfiles in
On 11/17/08 21:50, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Monday 17 November 2008, s. keeling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Re: Q: List Policy':
Hmm, tell that to the likes of Dan C in alt.os.linux.slackware, who
b*tch*s about people like you whose posts contain *two* sets of
sig-dashes; yours
On Monday 17 November 2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)':
Your email, though text, is really a quoted-printable attachment.
Tbird displays it as text, but eliminates the pgp-signature and the
list-supplied signature.
Yes
On 11/18/08 01:19, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Monday 17 November 2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)':
Your email, though text, is really a quoted-printable attachment.
Tbird displays it as text, but eliminates the pgp
On 11/16/08 01:53, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Sunday 16 November 2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Re: Q: List Policy':
and certainly
not gmail.
I found it in my gmail settings: Settings - Accounts Tab - Reply-to
Address (Optional)
I'm pleased to be wrong twice in one
On Sunday 16 November 2008 04:20, Ron Johnson wrote:
The ability to set the Reply-to Address serves no
purpose to someone subscribed to mailing lists, and wants to easily
reply to the list.
I find the easiest, mostly client-independent way to do that is to
Reply-To-All and then remove the
Patrick Wiseman wrote:
Oh, please. What the heck do you know about the forums I manage? I
wasn't suggesting that Debian forums should set reply-to that way. I
was merely pointing out that misdirected replies are not gmail's fault,
but the user's.
It is certainly possible to correctly reply
Ron Johnson wrote:
It isn't that difficult to create Reply-to-List functionality.
Tell that to the TBird developers. We're going on, what, 4 years now and
counting? :(
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who can decide what they dream
PGP Key: 1FC01004 | and dream I
Ron Johnson wrote:
Webmail and popular MUAs like Tbird and Lookout make it difficult to
follow the no-CC rule. Someone, though, has thoughtfully written a
replytolist plugin for Tbird/Icedove. Get v0.3.0 unless you use IMAP,
which requires you to use v0.2.1.
Huh, first time I ever saw
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/15/08 22:26, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 15 November 2008, Patrick Wiseman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
about 'Re: Q: List
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/16/08 00:38, Celejar wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:33:43 -0600
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
The most common MUAs (and all webmail) don't allow Reply-to to be set
to anything other than what the application thinks it should be.
Do you mean that MUAs
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 2:53 AM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 16 November 2008, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Re: Q: List Policy':
and certainly
not gmail.
I found it in my gmail settings: Settings - Accounts Tab - Reply-to
Address (Optional
On 11/16/08 06:23, Steve Lamb wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
Webmail and popular MUAs like Tbird and Lookout make it difficult to
follow the no-CC rule. Someone, though, has thoughtfully written a
replytolist plugin for Tbird/Icedove. Get v0.3.0 unless you use IMAP,
which requires you to use
On 11/16/08 04:36, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Sunday 16 November 2008 04:20, Ron Johnson wrote:
The ability to set the Reply-to Address serves no
purpose to someone subscribed to mailing lists, and wants to easily
reply to the list.
I find the easiest, mostly client-independent way to
Ron Johnson wrote:
Of course. Which is why $SOMEONE wrote the Tbird replytolist plugin...
Unfortunately, that plugin does not work, at least for me and other
people that observed the same effect. It does not crash, the but
reply-to-list button is always disabled.
--
knghtbrd He's a about
On 11/16/08 10:14, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
Of course. Which is why $SOMEONE wrote the Tbird replytolist plugin...
Unfortunately, that plugin does not work, at least for me and other
people that observed the same effect. It does not crash, the but
reply-to-list
Patrick Wiseman a écrit :
How so? When I reply to an email to this list, gmail presumes I want to
reply to the sender. I simply change the return address to the list. I
manage several forums on which I set Reply-To to the forum address;
gmail respects that. If there's a problem here, it's
Patrick Wiseman a écrit :
...
And why do you send message in text+HTML format to this list ? ;-)
Fanfan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
François Cerbelle wrote:
A list should *NEVER* alter the contents of a message and the
reply-to field *DOES BELONGS TO THE CONTENTS* of the message.
What happens if one of the subscribers does want to have a reply on a
specific address ? It is its right and the ListMaster do not have to
Roger B.A. Klorese a écrit :
It's the right of the list-owner to set reply policy. If the list's
policy is that replies must be to the list - as many owners of
community-style lists require - the subscriber can either go along with
it or go away.
What would you think if the listmaster
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:05:36 -0600, Ron Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On 11/16/08 00:38, Celejar wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:33:43 -0600
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
The most common MUAs (and all webmail) don't allow Reply-to to be
set to anything other than what
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 02:27:28PM EST, François Cerbelle wrote:
Patrick Wiseman a écrit :
...
And why do you send message in text+HTML format to this list ? ;-)
Yeah .. it took me a while to figure out how I could get mutt to display
the text/plain version rather than the text/html version
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 02:23:12PM EST, François Cerbelle wrote:
Patrick Wiseman a écrit :
How so? When I reply to an email to this list, gmail presumes I want to
reply to the sender. I simply change the return address to the list. I
manage several forums on which I set Reply-To to the
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
