* Alexander Dahl p...@lespocky.de [03-10-13 04:44]:
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 10:33:03AM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
P.S.: and I have to get my mutt macros fixed, some hook changed my
from address here after I replied on another mailing list … m( *lol*
FWIW:
send-hook . set from
the mail to as
new from address for my reply. Is it possible to restore this
behaviour without dropping the default send-hook and without having
to write a send-hook for each and every mailing list?
Or: can mutt somehow detect my mail address where I get the mail to on
mailing lists and set it as from
from address every time where I
could just reply and mutt chose my mail address I got the mail to as
new from address for my reply. Is it possible to restore this
behaviour without dropping the default send-hook and without having
to write a send-hook for each and every mailing list
Hei hei,
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:47:14PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
I know not about button[s] as I work with text from the keyboard. But I
believe we are saying/mean the same thing, mailing list software should
not insert or alter Reply-To: header!
Of course not, I know we
changed my
from address here after I replied on another mailing list … m( *lol*
FWIW:
send-hook . set from=your@emailaddy
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) :(){ :|: };:
- -
signature.asc
Hei hei,
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 10:33:03AM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
P.S.: and I have to get my mutt macros fixed, some hook changed my
from address here after I replied on another mailing list … m( *lol*
FWIW:
send-hook . set from=your@emailaddy
I have this line in my send hooks
Hei hei,
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 03:59:24PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
Then there is *little* we disagree with in this scope. I am *against*
Reply-To: mudging by list software and believe it should *only* be
employed by a poster wishing replies to his posts to be rec'd by a
different
* Alexander Dahl p...@lespocky.de [03-08-13 12:14]:
Hei hei,
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 03:59:24PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
Then there is *little* we disagree with in this scope. I am *against*
Reply-To: mudging by list software and believe it should *only* be
employed by a poster
* Erik Christiansen dva...@internode.on.net [02-28-13 02:44]:
On 27.02.13 15:59, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
I am *against* Reply-To: mudging by list software and believe it
should *only* be employed by a poster wishing replies to his posts to
be rec'd by a different account such as posting
Incoming from Erik Christiansen:
On 27.02.13 15:59, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
I am *against* Reply-To: mudging by list software and believe it
should *only* be employed by a poster wishing replies to his posts to
be rec'd by a different account such as posting from work and wanting
receipt
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 06:41:55PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
On 27.02.13 15:59, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
I am *against* Reply-To: mudging by list software and believe it
should *only* be employed by a poster wishing replies to his posts to
be rec'd by a different account
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
The **ONLY** way to not get an extra copy is **NOT** to get CC'd in the
first place (and vice versa; i.e you in To and list in CC). It is
disgusting that the list software decides whether to honor the headers
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:55:15PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
Responding to list mail *should* be to the list unless op has
*specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical
and inefficient.
Here's where I disagree. There have been many, many times when I
wanted
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [02-27-13 13:56]:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
[...]
Responding to list mail *should* be to the list unless op has
*specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical
and inefficient.
Here's
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 03:13:43PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [02-27-13 13:56]:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
[...]
Responding to list mail *should* be to the list unless op has
*specifically* requested direct
Incoming from Derek Martin:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
The **ONLY** way to not get an extra copy is **NOT** to get CC'd in the
I've just got to say, as much as I think this's interesting, this's
not mutt related. mutt already does this stuff correctly
that turns out to be
true).
2. Doing so makes it next to impossible to reply privately when you
know you actually want that.
Most clients automanaiacally follow Reply-To if it is present, in
which case the author of such a response will have to manually edit
the recipient list
Incoming from Jeremy Kitchen:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:55:15PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
Responding to list mail *should* be to the list unless op has
*specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical
and inefficient.
Here's where I disagree. There have been
, this's
not mutt related. mutt already does this stuff correctly when used
correctly. Perhaps USENET:comp.mail.misc would be a better venue for
this discussion?
The key there may well be *when used correctly*... which very much is
the topic of this mailing list. But no matter.
This discussion
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
To my understanding, list software does not decide, except concerning MFT.
*The* problem is users not responding to list, L, but rather to all, g.
For the record, I'll also note that I rarely actually do this, even
though I
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [02-27-13 17:29]:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
To my understanding, list software does not decide, except concerning MFT.
*The* problem is users not responding to list, L, but rather to all, g.
For the record
* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [02-27-13 13:56]:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
[...]
Responding to list mail *should* be to the list unless op has
*specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical
and inefficient.
Here's
* Jeremy Kitchen kitc...@kitchen.io [02-27-13 15:15]:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:55:15PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
Responding to list mail *should* be to the list unless op has
*specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical
and inefficient.
Here's where I
, as much as I think this's interesting, this's
not mutt related. mutt already does this stuff correctly when used
This discussion ultimately arose as a direct result of someone asking
to change the default policy of this mailing list. Where else would
Ah. I stand corrected. I just thought
Incoming from Patrick Shanahan:
... justification :^). But we all must strive to do better. You,
hopefully all of us, will reach an age where you have time to make
the effort, and realize that such things are just common courtesy.
Yeah, and one day *real soon now*, everyone will know how
* s. keeling keel...@nucleus.com [02-27-13 18:55]:
[...]
Now why didn't L work on replying to you, yet r correctly (?!?)
replies to m-u? You people. You're all different. Line up, will
ya?!? :-P
If L did not work, you have something amiss in /etc/{Mm}uttrc or ~/.muttrc
For list mail I
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 02:43:42PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
If you've ever had to do this, you know it's tedious and annoying.
Mutt is the only client I know of that gives you a choice in the
matter, via the $reply-to variable.
I wondered why I couldn't find it. :) JFTR, it's $reply_to
--
On 27.02.13 15:59, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
I am *against* Reply-To: mudging by list software and believe it
should *only* be employed by a poster wishing replies to his posts to
be rec'd by a different account such as posting from work and wanting
receipt at home.
Hmmm, I've tried using Reply
the rest of the world.
The **ONLY** way to not get an extra copy is **NOT** to get CC'd in the
first place (and vice versa; i.e you in To and list in CC). It is
disgusting that the list software decides whether to honor the headers
or not
To my understanding, list software does not decide
that *you* desire rather than force an un-needed extra
copy upon the rest of the world.
The **ONLY** way to not get an extra copy is **NOT** to get CC'd in the
first place (and vice versa; i.e you in To and list in CC). It is
disgusting that the list software decides whether to honor
is **NOT** to get CC'd in the
first place (and vice versa; i.e you in To and list in CC). It is
disgusting that the list software decides whether to honor the headers
or not
--
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who
I used to use mbox format and save mailing list mail to eg:
~/mail/lists/mutt-users@mutt.org
which made it very easy to make a script that creates the mailboxes,
alias and subscribe commands. I'd simply save the first email to a
folder in lists/ then run the script and everything was set
accomodate your needs.
From /etc/dovecot/conf.d/10-mail.conf
...
namespace {
type = public
separator = /
prefix = Public/
location = maildir:/var/vmail/public:LAYOUT=fs:INDEX=~/public
list = yes
subscriptions = no
}
In particular the line that has LAYOUT=fs - it will then layout your
mailboxes
Hi David,
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 02:04:39PM +, David Woodfall wrote:
I used to use mbox format and save mailing list mail to eg:
~/mail/lists/mutt-users@mutt.org
Now that I've switched to IMAP + Maildir I'm using the following:
~/mail/.lists.mutt-users@mutt_org/
Note how
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 02:04:39PM +, David Woodfall wrote:
I used to use mbox format and save mailing list mail to eg:
~/mail/lists/mutt-users@mutt.org
which made it very easy to make a script that creates the mailboxes,
alias and subscribe commands. I'd simply save the first email
On (10/02/13 16:06), Andre Klärner kan...@ak-online.be put forth the
proposition:
Hi David,
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 02:04:39PM +, David Woodfall wrote:
I used to use mbox format and save mailing list mail to eg:
~/mail/lists/mutt-users@mutt.org
Now that I've switched to IMAP
with maildir. I think I dynamically generate my
mailbox list with a script that crawls through the directories and
returns directories that contain cur, new, and tmp.
This isn't a Maildir specific hint, but it does pertain to managing
mailing lists. One thing that has helped make list management
On (10/02/13 15:52), Chris Green c...@isbd.net put forth the proposition:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 02:04:39PM +, David Woodfall wrote:
I used to use mbox format and save mailing list mail to eg:
~/mail/lists/mutt-users@mutt.org
which made it very easy to make a script that creates
just use mutt on the same computer that the mail is stored
and it has no problems with maildir. I think I dynamically generate
my mailbox list with a script that crawls through the directories and
returns directories that contain cur, new, and tmp.
This isn't a Maildir specific hint, but it does
-- grarpamp grarp...@gmail.com [2013-02-08 22:17:26 -0500]:
If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list
updated from...
Subject: ...thread...
...to...
Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread...
I got this far in your email and had to reply no - please don't do that.
Sorry
On 08.02.13 22:29, Will Yardley wrote:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:17:26PM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list
updated from...
Subject: ...thread...
...to...
Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread...
I'm aware mail filters are readily
Derek Martin wrote:
But this philosophy favors the casual list member over the people who
read the list regularly. The community should cater to its regular
members, not people whose interest and participation are fleeting...
So this approach is wrong. The Mutt community, by and large
If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list
updated from...
Subject: ...thread...
...to...
Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread...
I'm aware mail filters are readily available to some.
I'm suggesting it because the prefixed subject line model is very prevalent
these days
Incoming from grarpamp:
If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list
updated from...
Subject: ...thread...
...to...
Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread...
If you can use something like procmail or mailfilter (or imapfilter?
maybe; I'm still researching that), you may
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:17:26PM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list
updated from...
Subject: ...thread...
...to...
Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread...
None for me, thanks.
I'm aware mail filters are readily available to some. I'm
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 09:11:55PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
Incoming from grarpamp:
If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list
updated from...
Subject: ...thread...
...to...
Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread...
If you can use something like procmail
Few things are 'absolute', trade offs are often involved.
Just as I might suggest maildrop over procmail, others
might suggest bashing their mail over the server wire,
or sieving it, instead of downloading it and filtering it locally.
As an occaisional subscriber with filter in hand, I recuse
Incoming from Derek Martin:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 09:11:55PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
Incoming from grarpamp:
If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list
updated from...
Subject: ...thread...
...to...
Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread...
If you can use
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:17:26PM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list
updated from...
Subject: ...thread...
...to...
Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread...
I'm aware mail filters are readily available to some. I'm suggesting
it because
of thing that you're inclined to be bothered by.
But this philosophy favors the casual list member over the people who
read the list regularly. The community should cater to its regular
members, not people whose interest and participation are fleeting...
So this approach is wrong. The Mutt community
assume he's got a reason for wanting it
Maybe I'm lazy [2], or temporarily stuck in a crappy UI,
or to make the list friendlier to potential converts from Bill's
land of the GUI, or any number of things.
I'm a sysadmin.
Or maybe I want to give those of us admins [1] who've mastered
filtering
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 01:48:33AM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
[1] Equating use of mutt with unix admin is not unreasonable ;-)
Yes it is. Probably far less than half the people who use mutt are
sysadmins. They're much more likely to be programmers.
[Laziness]
[2] Another fine trait of [1].
On
better tools. I've been here for nearly 15 years, and the arguments
Or maybe I've been here for over 20 and am forgetting this same wisdom
I already learned and am beginning to lose the good fight against the Borg.
EOF
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:17:26PM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
If at all possible I'd like to see the Subject: line for this list
updated from...
Subject: ...thread...
...to...
Subject: [mutt-users] ...thread...
Ugh. Please, no.
There are much better ways to filter messages. Here's my strategy
thanks!
* horseriver horseriv...@gmail.com [01-13-13 07:11]:
thanks!
I use abook and lbdb which did come packaged with mutt. They are quite
simple to setup following the included documentation, and readily
available, lbdb-0.37-11.1.2.x86_64, abook-0.6.0pre2-10.1.2.x86_64.
--
(paka)Patrick Shanahan
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 01:59:22PM -0600, Jim Graham wrote:
[snip]
Btw, port 587 is one of those that I said are used for authentication,
as opposed to port 25 which is UNauthenticated.
See the SMTP AUTH verb. Anything you can do on those oddball ports,
you can do on port 25. An SMTP host
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:56:15PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2013-01-10, Jim Graham spooky1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:57:03AM -0500, Mark H. Wood wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 01:59:22PM -0600, Jim Graham wrote:
[snip]
Btw, port 587 is one of those that I said
Hello,
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 08:04:05AM -0500, Patrick
Shanahan wrote:
* horseriver horseriv...@gmail.com [01-08-13 06:16]:
I can not receive mails which are sent by
myself to a mail list .
Yes, gmail thinks returning mails *you* posted
are duplicates.
One among the reasons why I
* horseriver horseriv...@gmail.com [2013-01-08 09:31:34 +0800]:
hi:
I can not receive mails which are sent by myself to a mail list .
somewhere wrong?
thanks!
When I set up my Gmail account I went into the settings on the web
interface and set up an address that I can send from
Hello,
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 09:50:59AM -0500, Patrick
Shanahan wrote:
There is no *hack* but a legitimate mail
configuration.
It's a legitimate UNIX-way configuration, bit the
world ceased to be that way 10 years ago. SMTP
servers no longer accept users' mail at port 25,
but tend to do this
* Alexander Gattin xr...@yandex.ru [01-09-13 11:23]:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 09:50:59AM -0500, Patrick
Shanahan wrote:
There is no *hack* but a legitimate mail configuration.
It's a legitimate UNIX-way configuration, bit the world ceased to be
that way 10 years ago. SMTP servers no longer
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 05:33:02PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Jim Graham spooky1...@gmail.com [01-08-13 13:38]:
[...]
Just be advised, this will result in SPF=NEUTRAL or SPF=FAIL (usually
neutral, from what I've seen). Depending on the settings for the list
you're on (as well
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:54:57AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Alexander Gattin xr...@yandex.ru [01-09-13 11:23]:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 09:50:59AM -0500, Patrick
Shanahan wrote:
that way 10 years ago. SMTP servers no longer accept users' mail at
port 25, but tend to do this at
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:54:57AM -0500, Patrick
Shanahan wrote:
no, not so. And I can do the same from windoz.
It is nothing to do with *nix but with
*configuration* of your mailing system.
nope, what you describe is UNIX/ARPA mail, nothing
to do with Windoze -- but there are certain
.
GMail receives my posts from what-ever list involved as any other post.
It is *not* forwarding my mail, I have routed my isp via postfix to do
that.
But it is a major pain to do your own smtp from a non-dedicated
domain.
Almost everyone is using msmtp instead of sendmail/qmail/exim/postfix
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 12:42:42PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Jim Graham spooky1...@gmail.com [01-09-13 12:25]:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:54:57AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Alexander Gattin xr...@yandex.ru [01-09-13 11:23]:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 09:50:59AM -0500, Patrick
* Jim Graham spooky1...@gmail.com [01-09-13 15:02]:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 12:42:42PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Jim Graham spooky1...@gmail.com [01-09-13 12:25]:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:54:57AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Alexander Gattin xr...@yandex.ru [01-09-13 11:23]:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 03:05:17PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Jim Graham spooky1...@gmail.com [01-09-13 15:02]:
But you are not limited to port 25 for outgoing mail. Assign a higher
port, 1024.
You mean a port like, say, port 587, which I have had configured for
no, 1024,
hi:
I can not receive mails which are sent by myself to a mail list .
somewhere wrong?
thanks!
* horseriver horseriv...@gmail.com [01-08-13 06:16]:
hi:
I can not receive mails which are sent by myself to a mail list .
somewhere wrong?
Yes, gmail thinks returning mails *you* posted are duplicates. If you
want to see the list mail you post, use a different smtp agent, ie: your
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 08:04:05AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* horseriver horseriv...@gmail.com [01-08-13 06:16]:
I can not receive mails which are sent by myself to a mail list .
If you want to see the list mail you post, use a different smtp agent,
ie: your own isp, and use your
* Jim Graham spooky1...@gmail.com [01-08-13 13:38]:
[...]
Just be advised, this will result in SPF=NEUTRAL or SPF=FAIL (usually
neutral, from what I've seen). Depending on the settings for the list
you're on (as well as what kind of server the list is running on), it
may be blocking e-mail
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 01:53:59PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 02:33:56PM +0200, Nikola Petrov wrote:
The fact that I don't know how the engine of my car works doesn't make
me a newbie. That's what abstractions in our world are for.
Umm, in the car world yes
Sorry for continuing this flamewar,
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:55:32AM +0200, Nikola
Petrov wrote:
Just because my mom doesn't want to wrap her
text or use non html make her a worse/better
person. She just doesn't care and wants her work
done.
This exactly makes her a person who _doesn't
just
doesn't care and wants her work done.
Right, and that's fine¹, but if she ever did subscribe to a mailing list
for support, then there is a good chance that someone will say no html
thanks ...
I think as more and more people get introduced to Linux, this topic will
raise itself more and more
you'd be a newbie. Don't consider it a
derogatory term. We are all newbies somewhere.
I think what I should have said is that: If you want to get involved in
the car world i.e. subscribe to a mailing list where they talk about
your model of car, or you enrol in a course so that you can do some
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 02:33:56PM +0200, Nikola Petrov wrote:
The fact that I don't know how the engine of my car works doesn't make
me a newbie. That's what abstractions in our world are for.
Yes, it *does* make you an ignorant newbie, on the topic of automotive
engine maintenance. (I'm one
,
especially mailing list posts, frankly I would personally much rather
see actual italicised or bolded text than things like *this* *should*
*be* *bold* in an e-mail message, and properly formatted tables when
that is called for; and HTML gives you all of that very effectively.
There are three
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:44:35PM -0600, Jim Graham wrote:
If you keep track, you'll probably find, as I have, that HTML-only
e-mail is between 99% to 100% spam.
HTML email is sent exclusively by three groups of people:
1. Ignorant newbies
2. Ineducable morons
3. Spammers
There are no
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 06:27:42AM -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:44:35PM -0600, Jim Graham wrote:
If you keep track, you'll probably find, as I have, that HTML-only
e-mail is between 99% to 100% spam.
HTML email is sent exclusively by three groups of people:
1.
.
---rsk
Ignorant newbies may at some point become the Michael Elkins of the
future. Back in the day when I was an ignorant newbie, I came to this
list for help. I got a little help and plenty of ignorant newbie
attitude. We could do with a little less of that attitude in all
endeavors
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 02:33:56PM +0200, Nikola Petrov wrote:
What about clients that you are doing support for?
That's so easy to handle, I'm surprised to see it asked (at least,
if you're using procmail). You create two (or more) rc files for
procmail. For example, I have a setup that
* Dale A. Raby daler...@gmail.com [12-10-12 08:33]:
...
I appologize ahead of time for this rant, but you see, I know what a DOS
window is and I guess I'm getting ornery in my old age.
or cp/m and audio tape storage.
and *ignorance* |= stupid
but lacking in knowledge and perhaps *only*
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:30:14AM -0600, Dale A. Raby wrote:
Ignorant newbies may at some point become the Michael Elkins of the
future.
They may. And that would be an entirely good thing, for them and
for all of us.
But that doesn't preclude the fact that they're ignorant newbies *today*.
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 02:33:56PM +0200, Nikola Petrov wrote:
The fact that I don't know how the engine of my car works doesn't make
me a newbie. That's what abstractions in our world are for.
Umm, in the car world yes you'd be a newbie. Don't consider it a
derogatory term. We are all
to get quite a bit of HTML formatted
email from friends, family, and business associates. Also, some of the
lists I subscribe to come in HTML.
And that's fine¹. But on a mailing list it is a terrible way to try and
get support.
¹ Well, OK it isn't, but have you tried nailing jelly to a tree
that smaller group, there are some who regard the larger world of
email users with contempt. I've seen the terms lazy, ignorant,
stupid, and barbarians at the gates used by members of this list to
refer to those who don't adhere to their strictures. They chastise those
who post without following
=- Peter Davis wrote on Sun 2.Dec'12 at 8:54:58 -0500 -=
Ok, this, more than any of the previous discussion, clarifies the
situation for me. Within the global community of hundreds of
millions of email users, there's a smaller, cloistered
constituency of perhaps a few thousand who prefer
.
It is worth understanding that the degenerate communication practices of
the inconsiderate masses are not improved or made less abhorrent by the
sheer numbers who fail to write for the benefit of their readers. It is
foolish to come to a list, declaring Do it my way. I have hordes of
ugly friends outside
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 05:57:03PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:
I see now, how some of the posts in this thread seemed so weird! So
in this light, you'll see that the mutt-users mailing list just
happens to represent the majority of posters on mailing lists.
Your conclusion seems to be drawn
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 03:13:12AM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2012-12-01, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 06:20:00PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
The main Python mailing list gets regular posts from Google Groups.
Those posts are always
[ Derek Martin Wrote On Fri 30.Nov'12 at 17:17:22 GMT ]
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:23:58PM +, Jamie Paul Griffin wrote:
There could be any number of reasons why someone might
not compose a perfect message: there could be learning difficulties,
some other physical impairment, someone
=- Jamie Paul Griffin wrote on Sat 1.Dec'12 at 8:38:57 + -=
Long lines != the end of the world. Simple as that.
... _for you_.
But it can mean the beginning of the end for efficient
communication, when everybody starts caring less and less for it by
introducing (and trying to establish)
[ Rado S Wrote On Sat 1.Dec'12 at 9:17:29 GMT ]
=- Jamie Paul Griffin wrote on Sat 1.Dec'12 at 8:38:57 + -=
Long lines != the end of the world. Simple as that.
... _for you_.
But it can mean the beginning of the end for efficient
communication, when everybody starts caring less
On 2012-12-01, Jamie Paul Griffin ja...@kode5.net wrote:
... and I agree completely. As I wrote, I now wrap my lines and will
make extra effort to ensure message formatting conforms so they are
more readable. I don't like upsetting people, and I have taken on
board all the valid and sensible
refuse to use their web service.
Strange...because one of the local e-mail lists I'm on (Amateur Radio) is
a yahoo group, and I do see posts from non-yahoo accounts (including
gmail, cox, aol, gnt, et al). These are recent, not old posts. Perhaps
this only applies to new lists or new list
On 2012-12-01, jim graham spooky1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 02:12:03AM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2012-11-30, Jim Graham spooky1...@gmail.com wrote:
announcement type list for the freeware hurricane tracker (JStrack)
[]
It's a google groups list.
If needed I can
On 2012-12-01, Patrick Shanahan ptilopt...@gmail.com wrote:
* Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com [11-30-12 21:13]:
...
I think the Yahoo list server can be used by anybody (I guess you have
to sign up for a Yahoo account, to do admin stuff). They offer a web
UI, but you don't actually
* Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com [12-01-12 10:27]:
On 2012-12-01, Patrick Shanahan ptilopt...@gmail.com wrote:
* Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com [11-30-12 21:13]:
...
I think the Yahoo list server can be used by anybody (I guess you have
to sign up for a Yahoo account
201 - 300 of 1389 matches
Mail list logo
