On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:37:53 -0500
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Must be a bug. In Sylpheed 2.0.1-1 (GTK+ version 2.6.10),
> Message->"Reply to"->"Mailing list" does what it's supposed
> to do: put only debian-user@lists.debian.org in To:, and
> nothing in Cc:.
I figured as much, I gu
Seth Goodman wrote:
> I am well aware of the differences between the two standards. You would do
> well to read them both carefully as well as RFC1123.
Apparently not since you got them backwards and couldn't even see the
problems in your own argument.
> In the redistribution case, the only
> From: Steve Lamb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 2:50 AM
>
>
> Seth Goodman wrote:
> > Referencing 822 for much of anything these days is not very
> > useful, unless
> > if you're interested in email history.
>
> Which is something you need to know when blatently
Seth Goodman wrote:
> Referencing 822 for much of anything these days is not very useful, unless
> if you're interested in email history.
Which is something you need to know when blatently getting 822 and 2822
backwards when it comes to reply-to.
> As I pointed out in a previous post,
> Reply
> From: Steve Lamb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 2:41 PM
>
>
> Seth Goodman wrote:
> > Getting back to the reply function, the standards are silent as
> > to how to
> > treat Reply-To: for a redistributed message and the field is optional to
> > start with. The pre
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 17:39:40 -0700
Seeker5528 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:40:50 -0700
> Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> To add to the insanity (at least with sylpheed-claws-gtk2)
> it seems if the Reply To: field contains the posters email
> address the
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:40:50 -0700
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wrong, wrong, wrong. How you can cite 2822 as a reference for reply-to
> munging while denouncing 822 is beyond me. It was 822 that had an explicit
> reference to mailing lists as an acceptable use of 822. 2822 *remo
Seth Goodman wrote:
> Getting back to the reply function, the standards are silent as to how to
> treat Reply-To: for a redistributed message and the field is optional to
> start with. The preferred reply action for a mailing list message is to
> reply to the list (the actual sender of the message
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Threading is based on message IDs. The mailer threads properly.
Threading is based on the References header which is a News header.
In-reply-to is insufficient for complete threading when one hop is missing. :P
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm y
Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> 2) Respond to the list and don't CC me
> So in this case, do we hit reply-all, and cut and paste the list email
> as the To: line, removing all others, etc?
Yes. This is a problem with Thunderbird as there is no list reply. One
of the few problems with an otherwise
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 14:20 -0400, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
>
>>Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>>
>>This is fine. Notice how "reply to the list, but don't CC me" isn't
>>part of what "reasonable mailers" are expected to do:
>>
>>"Rep
Albert wrote:
> Yes, you are right. Debian does this different than the rest of the world.
That's because we do it the right way. As of RFC2822 reply-to munging is
clearly wrong while in 822 there was a clear indication it was allowed.
Furthermore several other list headers are included for e
Mike said:
Threading is based on message IDs. The mailer threads properly.
The message ID should not change based on whom the message is sent AFAICT,
so who is in the reply feild does not really matter.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
"John Hasler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joe Smith writes:
Rember that email was not designed for threading. Threading was what
newsgroups were invented for.
No. News was invented to reduce traffic. There used to be a rule of
thumb
on how large a mailing-
Joe Smith writes:
> Rember that email was not designed for threading. Threading was what
> newsgroups were invented for.
No. News was invented to reduce traffic. There used to be a rule of thumb
on how large a mailing-list should get before it was replaced by a
newsgroup.
> This is supposed to
Joe Smith wrote:
"Mike McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ron Johnson wrote:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Using what he recommends ruins threaded reading, because
the reply goes to the originator of the message, and the
list gets CCd.
"Mike McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ron Johnson wrote:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Using what he recommends ruins threaded reading, because
the reply goes to the originator of the message, and the
list gets CCd.
That sounds like a
> From: Ron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 12:50 PM
<...>
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
This is written from the perspective of Elm being the reference for all
MUA's. Though I used Elm twenty years ago as my primary MUA, the MUA's in
wide
Good afternoon!
So in this case, do we hit reply-all, and cut and paste the list email as
the To: line, removing all others, etc?
I use reply all and then cut out everyone's name leaving only the list
address.
So far, I haven't annoyed anyone.
Rob
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
Ron Johnson wrote:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Using what he recommends ruins threaded reading, because
the reply goes to the originator of the message, and the
list gets CCd.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 14:20 -0400, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> This is fine. Notice how "reply to the list, but don't CC me" isn't
> part of what "reasonable mailers" are expected to do:
>
> "Reply-To munging does not ben
Ron Johnson wrote:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
This is fine. Notice how "reply to the list, but don't CC me" isn't
part of what "reasonable mailers" are expected to do:
"Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer.
People want to munge Reply-To h
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 12:39 -0500, Albert wrote:
Yes, you are right. Debian does this different than the rest of
the world.
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Yes, this ancient piece of Holy Writ was quoted to me years ago.
Still, Debian does this different
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 12:39 -0500, Albert wrote:
> Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> > [Sorry for replying in that other thread, here is a new one:]
> >
> >
> > Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much "respond this way" on the list
> > lately. I'm using Tbird, and when I hit "reply" it replies to the
Angelo Bertolli wrote:
[Sorry for replying in that other thread, here is a new one:]
Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much "respond this way" on the list
lately. I'm using Tbird, and when I hit "reply" it replies to the
poster only. When I hit "reply-all" it goes to the poster, the list,
n-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:39:18 +0100
>
> Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> > [Sorry for replying in that other thread, here is a new one:]
> >
> >
> > Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much "re
Angelo Bertolli wrote:
[Sorry for replying in that other thread, here is a new one:]
Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much "respond this way" on the list
lately. I'm using Tbird, and when I hit "reply" it replies to the
poster only. When I hit "reply-all" it goes to the poster, the list,
[Sorry for replying in that other thread, here is a new one:]
Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much "respond this way" on the list
lately. I'm using Tbird, and when I hit "reply" it replies to the
poster only. When I hit "reply-all" it goes to the poster, the list,
and maybe a few others
28 matches
Mail list logo