On Jan 07, 2010, at 03:56 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>My advice, obviously, is that I don't think it will work as well as
>the existing software, but it wouldn't be the first time I've been
>very wrong, and I hope to live long enough to make many more
>mistakes. :-) If he's right, it would be
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 03:56:50PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Earl Ruby writes:
>
> > I've read back through this thread, and forgive me if this has been
> > discussed before, but have you considered giving subscribers the
> > option of deciding for themselves whether their replies sho
Earl Ruby writes:
> I've read back through this thread, and forgive me if this has been
> discussed before, but have you considered giving subscribers the
> option of deciding for themselves whether their replies should go to
> the list or to the poster?
No, I hadn't considered it, and upon c
I've read back through this thread, and forgive me if this has been
discussed before, but have you considered giving subscribers the
option of deciding for themselves whether their replies should go to
the list or to the poster?
In other words, add the option:
Where are replies to list messages d
On Oct 15, 2009, at 10:43 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
My main, central, and driving point is a desire to create a system
that
is both idiot friendly and expert friendly, and my desire is to
have all
known common (end-user) and uncommon (technical user) use cases be
handled in a manner tha
Michael B. Trausch writes:
> My main, central, and driving point is a desire to create a system that
> is both idiot friendly and expert friendly, and my desire is to have all
> known common (end-user) and uncommon (technical user) use cases be
> handled in a manner that is consistent and port
Michael B. Trausch writes:
> That said, I think the MUA is simply the wrong place for it;
> current models aim to control the user in one way or another, or
> lack flexibility in exchange for convenience or vice versa. It
> doesn't have to be that way; it's not 1970, folks.
How you can get f
Michael B. Trausch writes:
> Now, _this_ is where the situation is _bad_. It's _awful_. If every
> single ML worked in precisely the same way, there would be _zero_
> issues.
Well, yes. That's why there are RFCs, so that software and its users
can interoperate over the Internet. You either
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 08:33 -0700, Jordan Hayes wrote:
> Anyway, Barry asked:
>
> >> Have you never wanted to reply privately to the author of a mailing
> >> message?
>
> Of course. But it's not the common case; the common case is:
> continue
> the discussion, on-list. So you're wanting to do
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 02:05 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Barry Warsaw writes:
>
> > It's actually easy too. An MUA need only recognize List-Post and add
> > a Reply to List button which would strip all the recipients and put
> > the List-Post value in the To header. Problem solved.
Barry Warsaw writes:
> It's actually easy too. An MUA need only recognize List-Post and add
> a Reply to List button which would strip all the recipients and put
> the List-Post value in the To header. Problem solved.
Wrong problem. The users Michael is representing want a one-button MU
Since this thread has devolved into the same unwinnable emacs-vs-vim
argument about Reply-To munging, I'm going to disengage.
Mailman's official policy won't change. It considers Reply-To munging
to be a bad thing in the general case, and will discourage its use.
It will still supply the
This thread is a perfect example; "Reply-All" in my MUA puts all these
people on the destination list, even though I'm pretty sure they are all
on the list itself. Enjoy your duplicates! And if one of you *isn't*
on the list, then you should join.
Anyway, Barry asked:
Have you never wanted
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 08:41 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2009, at 4:19 AM, Michael B. Trausch wrote:
>
> > * MLs that require "reply all" instead, and instead of sending _one_
> > message in threading context, send N number of messages where N is
> > however many people are listed i
Michael B. Trausch wrote:
>
>Whether the emails are in a personal,
>hobbyist, collegiate, educational, or professional context, the patterns
>are largely the same. In both events, 95+% of the time, there is no
>reply-to header attached by the authors MUA.
Where do you get this statistic. I have
On Oct 14, 2009, at 4:19 AM, Michael B. Trausch wrote:
* MLs that require "reply all" instead, and instead of sending _one_
message in threading context, send N number of messages where N is
however many people are listed in various headers.
This is not a bug in mailing list software, it's
On Oct 14, 2009, at 1:35 AM, Michael B. Trausch wrote:
There are two major uses of email, discounting automatically generated
messages, corporate crap and spam: email from one person or to one
person or a group of people, and email from one person to a mailing
list
(presumably with people on
On Oct 13, 2009, at 7:15 PM, Michael B. Trausch wrote:
I would say that if ML software _always_ overrides reply-to, even when
the author explicitly provided one, then that is broken.
Aside from the other problems that have been pointed out, selectively
overriding Reply-to makes the mailing l
On 14-Oct-2009, Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 12:55 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > Reply-To still is truly broken. The author wants personal replies
> > to go to her, but now they go to the list. The recipient must
> > *specifically avoid reply-to-author* in order to re
Sorry, I didn't have time in my reply earlier to look up the citation
in RFC 5322 (and (nearly?) identical language in RFC 2822). Here it
is, along with an apology.
Michael B. Trausch writes:
> On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 12:55 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > Michael B. Trausch writes:
> >
>
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 17:30 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 14-Oct-2009, Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 12:55 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > > Reply-To still is truly broken. The author wants personal replies
> > > to go to her, but now they go to the list. The recipient
Michael B. Trausch writes:
> Permit me to rephrase so that you understand what I said:
I understand what you said. You are not responding to what I said,
except emotionally. Stripped of emotional language, the fact is that
there are use cases for Reply-To which Reply-To munging overrides.
The
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 12:55 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Michael B. Trausch writes:
>
> [This was me, stephen, but the attribution was dropped:]
The attribution was _not_ dropped, it was at the top of the message in
standard inline-reply fashion. You may want to double check the message
t
Michael B. Trausch writes:
[This was me, stephen, but the attribution was dropped:]
> > The upshot is that there is no RFC-sanctioned way for a list to say
> > "please respond here", and no way at all that doesn't usurp *both* the
> > author's and the receiver's options.
>
> The best way to
UGH. I hit Send by accident, going for the menu bar. I hate my mouse.
Sorry for the dup.
Note, I am not subscribed to mailman-developers@python.org, so this
message may or may not get through to that list. I did CC everyone
interested so far, though (I think), in this subthread.
On Tue, 2009-
Note, I am not subscribed to mailman-developers@python.org, so this
message may or may not get through to that list. I did CC everyone
interested so far, though (I think), in this subthread.
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 16:03 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Reply-To set to me. Please verify that yo
26 matches
Mail list logo
