Hi!
Seems like the Reply-To: header for this list no longer point to the
list... is that an intentional change?
I would appreciate having the old behaviour instead.
/Andreas
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 02:41:40PM +0100, Andreas Vinsander wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Seems like the Reply-To: header for this list no longer point to the
> list... is that an intentional change?
>
> I would appreciate having the old behaviour instead.
>
> /Andreas
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing
Andrea Barisani wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 02:41:40PM +0100, Andreas Vinsander wrote:
Hi!
Seems like the Reply-To: header for this list no longer point to the
list... is that an intentional change?
I would appreciate having the old behaviour instead.
/Andreas
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 04:44:12PM +0100, Holly Bostick wrote:
>
> It's a simple question: "The list behaviour has changed; is it going to
> change back, or not?"
It's not going to change back unless big problems related to this are
detected/reported.
This will also be set on all other gentoo
Andrea Barisani wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 02:41:40PM +0100, Andreas Vinsander wrote:
Hi!
Seems like the Reply-To: header for this list no longer point to the
list... is that an intentional change?
I would appreciate having the old behaviour instead.
/Andreas
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing
Arnstein Oseland wrote:
Andrea Barisani wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 02:41:40PM +0100, Andreas Vinsander wrote:
Hi!
Seems like the Reply-To: header for this list no longer point to the
list... is that an intentional change?
I would appreciate having the old behaviour instead.
/Andreas
--
gentoo
On Wednesday 23 February 2005 09:00, Holly Bostick wrote:
> Reply to list? That would be a great thing, if I/Thunderbird had that.
> Which mail client has that?
KMail does. If you press 'L' on a list message, it does reply-to-list.
--
t3h 3l3ctr0n3rd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Supermarket Deli Clerk and
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 06:00:40PM +0100, Holly Bostick wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Well, Thunderbird only supports "Reply" and "Reply All". If I do "Reply
> >All" I have to manually intervene and remove the sender's mail-address.
>
> Don't forget also changing CC: for the list to To: and the fact that
On Wednesday 23 February 2005 17:21, John Myers wrote:
> > Reply to list? That would be a great thing, if I/Thunderbird had that.
> > Which mail client has that?
>
> KMail does. If you press 'L' on a list message, it does reply-to-list.
KMail also seems to get the reply to address right anyway.
(I
Andrea Barisani wrote:
and probably leaving the old setup is the best choice since I have no time to
discuss this and tell people how to configure their MUA.
Anybody have the time and knowledge to write something for the docs page
about basic MUA configuration for the most common MUAs in use on Ge
> That way, both the admin and the users could be comfortable.
...or - at the very least - we'd have a quick way to answer folks with
questions about this sort of thing... ;)
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:52:08 +, Mike Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 February 2005 17:21, John Myers wrote:
> > > Reply to list? That would be a great thing, if I/Thunderbird had that.
> > > Which mail client has that?
> >
> > KMail does. If you press 'L' on a list message
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- Original Message
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Reply-To: header seems broken
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 09:32:23 -0800
From: Mike Noble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Holly Bostick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROT
>
> Reply to list? That would be a great thing, if I/Thunderbird had that.
> Which mail client has that?
kmail. If you hit the reply button and hold it (or hit the right key to set it
directly) you can choose from four forms of reply. Reply, Reply to the
sender, reply to all, reply to the the m
On Wednesday 23 February 2005 11:49 am, Andrea Barisani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I'm sick and tired of witnessing how difficult it is to reasonably
> change a few headers in this mailing lists. While I acknolewdge the fact
> that it's best to warn users before doing something like this I also
On Wednesday 23 February 2005 12:31 pm, Mike Noble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The best thing that the gentoo server could do would be that every mail
> that comes into the server re-writes the Reply-To so that it always
> sends mail back to the list.
No, that's not the best thing. It break em
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Holly Bostick wrote:
Don't forget also changing CC: for the list to To: and the fact that anyone
who doesn't feel like removing those additional entries will double my
incoming mail for any thread I have responded to (because I'm in the CC so I
get it personally, and I get i
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Christopher Fisk wrote:
I agree, in fact, I will probably end up replying to the wrong person on some
threads, which can become annoying. But that said, if you have access to
procmail you can use the following recipe to keep from getting duplicate
messages:
:0 Wh: msgid.l
Not a direct response to Chris's post, but...
If you really dislike getting duplicates AND believe that all mail
should be directed and the list rather than to you personally, there
is NOTHING to stop you from adding the Reply-To header yourself. =)
I have a hook in mutt that does just that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Holly Bostick wrote:
| Andrea Barisani wrote:
|
|> and probably leaving the old setup is the best choice since I have no
|> time to
|> discuss this and tell people how to configure their MUA.
|>
|
| Anybody have the time and knowledge to write something
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:17:19 +0100, Karsten Baumgarten wrote:
> Even though Andrea had (was forced?) to revert the changes for the
> "reasons" mentioned in this thread, here's the simple solution for
> Thunderbird users: Instead of using "Reply to sender" or "Reply to all"
> simply use the "Edit a
On 19:03 Wed 23 Feb , Holly Bostick wrote:
> Andrea Barisani wrote:
>
> >and probably leaving the old setup is the best choice since I have no time
> >to
> >discuss this and tell people how to configure their MUA.
> >
>
> Anybody have the time and knowledge to write something for the docs pa
Karsten Baumgarten wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Holly Bostick wrote:
| Andrea Barisani wrote:
|
|> and probably leaving the old setup is the best choice since I have no
|> time to
|> discuss this and tell people how to configure their MUA.
|>
|
| Anybody have the time and kn
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:54:51 -0600
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>
>
> No, that's not the best thing. It break emails that use the reply-to
> header for it's original (and standards-compliant) behavior. It may be
> easy, but that doesn't make it right.
>
> Please read, if you haven't alread
Oh #$#R*&Y not again, please check the (ancient) archives on why this
list was changed from the behaviour that you seem to have initiated
without consultation with the list.
In short:
1) many replies to the list (and the expertise it represented) were lost
as most people never bothered to navigate
On Wednesday 23 February 2005 06:17 pm, Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:54:51 -0600
>
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > No, that's not the best thing. It break emails that use the reply-to
> > header for it's original (and standards-compliant) behavior. It may
> >
At Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:00:40 +0100 Holly Bostick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reply to list? That would be a great thing, if I/Thunderbird had
> that. Which mail client has that?
Emacs/gnus has this f (followup) or F (followup, include original).
Both are located just to the right of the third h
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 05:04:30PM -0500, Dennis Taylor wrote:
> Go ahead, if you like preaching to the choir. :-) In the land
> of Perfect, there would be no Windoze, but I don't live in
> perfect.
>
> I said long ago that Norton Anti-virus is not very effective
> because it does not detect windo
Bostick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 1:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Reply-To: header seems broken
Andrea Barisani wrote:
> and probably leaving the old setup is the best choice since I have no time to
> discuss this and tell people
On Wednesday 23 February 2005 12:28 pm, Dennis Taylor wrote:
> acronym
http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?p=dict&String=exact&Acronym=MUA
pgpGca5dY10aN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Dennis Taylor wrote:
Do we have an acronym list so that those of us who have been
out of circulation for a few years could find out what things
like MUA mean? Many of them I can guess, and some I remember
from years ago, but I have recently seen many that leave me
clueless.
Mail User Agent.
If
-user] Reply-To: header seems broken
Andrea Barisani wrote:
and probably leaving the old setup is the best choice since I have no time to
discuss this and tell people how to configure their MUA.
Anybody have the time and knowledge to write something for the docs page
about basic MUA configuration fo
Holly Bostick wrote:
Dennis Taylor wrote:
Do we have an acronym list so that those of us who have been
out of circulation for a few years could find out what things like MUA
mean? Many of them I can guess, and some I remember from years ago,
but I have recently seen many that leave me clueless.
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:28:03 -0500, Dennis Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do we have an acronym list so that those of us who have been
> out of circulation for a few years could find out what things
> like MUA mean? Many of them I can guess, and some I remember
> from years ago, but I have re
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Reply-To: header seems broken-- OT question
stimulated by this thread
Dennis Taylor wrote:
> Do we have an acronym list so that those of us who have been
> out of circulation for a few years could find out what things
> like MUA mean?
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Dennis Taylor wrote:
> Do we have an acronym list so that those of us who have been
> out of circulation for a few years could find out what things
> like MUA mean?
GOGLE.
--
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Dennis Taylor wrote:
> (whether I like it or not, no MS flames please)
Why shouldn't we flame the easiest virii target on the planet? ;-)
--
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [gentoo-user] Reply-To: header seems broken-- OT question
stimulated by this thread
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Dennis Taylor wrote:
> (whether I like it or not, no MS flames please)
Why shouldn't
many that leave me
clueless.
-Original Message-
From: Holly Bostick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 1:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Reply-To: header seems broken
Andrea Barisani wrote:
and probably leaving the old setup is the best
This is a perfect example of why the 'reply to' thing was originally broken,
recently fixed, and today reset back to the broken state.
One person posts an OT message that is quite easily resolved by doing a
simple google search.
But since the 'reply to' is broken again, we get 7 different replies
Dave Nebinger wrote:
This is a perfect example of why the 'reply to' thing was originally broken,
recently fixed, and today reset back to the broken state.
One person posts an OT message that is quite easily resolved by doing a
simple google search.
But since the 'reply to' is broken again, we get
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Holly Bostick wrote:
|
| Yes, but the point of the list is to tell the list, not that one person
| alone. Had all 7 replies been to the OP, then no one else who wanted the
| answer, now or in the future, would know what the answer was.
|
| In which case
Mike Noble wrote:
Holly is so correct here, all replies should go back to the list. If
you want to make a reply to the specific person, you know that you want
to change the behavior and you make a conscious effort to change the
the address to which the message is being sent.
I understand what you
> Yes, but the point of the list is to tell the list, not that one person
> alone. Had all 7 replies been to the OP, then no one else who wanted the
> answer, now or in the future, would know what the answer was.
The broken 'reply to' means that you don't have to think about where your
replies go,
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
This is a perfect example of why the 'reply to' thing was originally broken,
recently fixed, and today reset back to the broken state.
One person posts an OT message that is quite easily resolved by doing a
simple google search.
But since the 'reply to' is
> I know that today I sent two messages back to the people who originally
> posted when I really wanted it to go back to the list. Yes I was not
> thinking and just did a reply (which should have gone to the list).
That's just it - the thought process should go into which messages go to the
list,
Wrong, a reply that does not go back to the list is knowledge lost to
the community ...
BillK
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 08:28 -0500, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> > I know that today I sent two messages back to the people who originally
> > posted when I really wanted it to go back to the list. Yes I was
On Thursday 24 February 2005 07:43 am, William Kenworthy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wrong, a reply that does not go back to the list is knowledge lost to
> the community ...
No, it's not. You can *always* send a message again if it was supposed to
go to the list. You *can't* retract a message
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:08:21 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> No, it's not. You can *always* send a message again if it was supposed
> to go to the list. You *can't* retract a message if it was not supposed
> to go to the list.
If you are going to send potentially offensive, libellous or
On Thursday 24 February 2005 10:01 am, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:08:21 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > No, it's not. You can *always* send a message again if it was
> > supposed to go to the list. You *can't* retract a message if it was
> > not su
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:23:39 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> My statement does not concern offensive, libellous, or embarrassing
> emails at all. :P My statement concerns the fictional "loss of
> information" associated with not sending to the list.
It is not fictional. if the list has
On Thursday 24 February 2005 11:10 am, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Next you'll be claiming it doesn't matter whether you use vi or emacs
> ;-)
Let's not get into religion on this list. ;)
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
--
gentoo-user@
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Thursday 24 February 2005 11:10 am, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Next you'll be claiming it doesn't matter whether you use vi or emacs
;-)
Let's not get into religion on this list. ;)
Hehe, I use both...
Wonder where that takes me...
/Andreas
--
gento
53 matches
Mail list logo
