Hello!
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 15:29:03 -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I understood that (I'm not an idiot, as you may be
implying).
BTW, please don't be so arrogant to ask others "Please read
the post carefuly before replying" [sic]. You win nothing with this
attitude.
Sorry..
Rok Papez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I hit reply it tells me that From: and Reply-To: fields differ and
asks me to what e-mail adress do I want to reply (to mailing list or
to the author personal mailbox).
- Now that's a smart MUA.
Except that it's lying to you.
I know a non-trivial
Russell Nelson said:
Tim Pierce writes:
Sounds great! I'm all ears. Where do we submit bug reports for
Microsoft Internet Mail, Microsoft Outlook, and WebTV?
The problem (as I see it) is that there is no requirements or even
guidelines for MUAs. How's about we get all the mailing
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 10:45:21AM -0800,
Kai MacTane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like it wouldn't be already? Or are you suggesting that the originator
would manage all the mail coming back to hir, acting as a temporary gateway
between the two lists?
The Mail-Followup-To header will make
On Feb 19 1999, Rok Papez wrote:
The mailing list sets the Reply-To: address to the mailing list, the
From: field is preserved. When I hit the Reply buttin in PMMail
(MUA), he notices the difference between the "From:" and "Reply-To:"
list, pops up a quick dialog asking me to choose to whom
"Rok Papez" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| When I hit reply it tells me that From: and Reply-To: fields differ and
| asks me to what e-mail adress do I want to reply (to mailing list or
| to the author personal mailbox).
| - Now that's a smart MUA.
|
| And nearly all responses to my post that I got
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 08:53:51AM -0500, Peter Green wrote:
# On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Rok Papez wrote:
# I also moderate a mailing list where most people use PMMail and
# mailing list sets the Reply-To. There has been only 1 (!) mistake
# when someone replied to the mailing list instead of
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:30:03 -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 19 1999, Rok Papez wrote:
The mailing list sets the Reply-To: address to the mailing list, the
From: field is preserved. When I hit the Reply buttin in PMMail
(MUA), he notices the difference between the "From:" and
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Justin Bell wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 08:53:51AM -0500, Peter Green wrote:
# Try subscribing to the inet-access mailing list. They set the Reply-To: to
# the list, and it's nearly 2-5 times per day that someone accidentally
# posts a private response to the list.
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:05:31 -0500, Mark Bainter wrote:
Just use mutt. ( http://www.mutt.org )
(And yes, I'm not using it now. Qmail comes to my work account because
I'm too lazy to move it. I use mutt for all my other lists and it works
great. It is able to recognize lists and when you
Hi Peter.
# Try subscribing to the inet-access mailing list. They set the Reply-To: to
# the list, and it's nearly 2-5 times per day that someone accidentally
# posts a private response to the list.
now that is really strange
Not really, when you consider how busy everyone on the list is.
Hi Mark.
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:31:22 -0500, Mark Bainter wrote:
Then patch pine to work properly and/or add the features you need.
Don't break the list to fix a MUA problem. -shrug- I use mutt for
mutiple reasons. I personally like the interface, but my biggest reason
is that it does things
Um, no. Everybody honors Reply-To. The problem is that most MUAs
Not quite everybody. cc:Mail (at least some versions) completely
ignores it.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please note my new [EMAIL PROTECTED] address which will
become my
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 03:14:53PM +0100, Rok Papez wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:30:03 -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
damn Reply-To field myself upon request of my users. Are there any
ports of Mutt to the Windows world so that I can recommend that for my
users?
Mutt is very unintuitive
On Sat, Feb 20, 1999 at 09:42:45AM -0500, Greg Owen {gowen} wrote:
# Um, no. Everybody honors Reply-To. The problem is that most MUAs
#
# Not quite everybody. cc:Mail (at least some versions) completely
# ignores it.
that killed on the MTA level
--
/- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Rok Papez writes:
Who is talking about two "Reply-To:" fields
Anybody who suggests that the Reply-To should be set to "the" list.
What happens when mail is sent to multiple lists? Each sets the
Reply-To to its own list, and the discussion is immediately
fragmented. Doh!
--
-russ
Scott Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If your MUA is so smart, why doesn't it suppress the duplicates
for you (like procmail)?
Otherwise, you cannot avoid seeing *some*, because SMTP itself doesn't
guarantee not to generate some.
Though I'm not using procmail too heavily lately, I
- "Len Budney" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| Sadly, I think I'm one of the bogus-MUA users. I use Mew under
| emacs, and can only find one "reply" function, which seems to work
| as "reply to all". Does anyone know Mew, and know whether I've
| missed something?
I use mew. No, you haven't missed
Tim Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 February 1999 at 18:09:39 -0500
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 08:32:16AM -0500, Peter Green wrote:
Why doesn't Qmail mailing list set the
Reply To: field to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
It is very anoying that I must type the
mailing list address for
Scott Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 February 1999 at 18:46:24 -0500
Fact: SMTP does not guarantee that you won't see two copies of any
given message. We all know this, right? It's come up again and again,
and the fair comment is always that anyone who cares about that problem
On 02/19, Justin Bell wrote:
# I also moderate a mailing list where most people use PMMail and
# mailing list sets the Reply-To. There has been only 1 (!) mistake
# when someone replied to the mailing list instead of privately.
# Try subscribing to the inet-access mailing list. They set
Text written by Russell Nelson at 03:18 PM 2/19/99 -:
Rok Papez writes:
Who is talking about two "Reply-To:" fields
Anybody who suggests that the Reply-To should be set to "the" list.
What happens when mail is sent to multiple lists? Each sets the
Reply-To to its own list, and the
Hi Russell.
On 19 Feb 1999 15:18:39 -, Russell Nelson wrote:
Who is talking about two "Reply-To:" fields
Anybody who suggests that the Reply-To should be set to "the" list.
What happens when mail is sent to multiple lists? Each sets the
Reply-To to its own list, and the discussion
On Fri 1999-02-19 (15:22), Rok Papez wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:05:31 -0500, Mark Bainter wrote:
Just use mutt. ( http://www.mutt.org )
(And yes, I'm not using it now. Qmail comes to my work account because
I'm too lazy to move it. I use mutt for all my other lists and it works
On Feb 19 1999, Rok Papez wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:30:03 -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. IMO, it's not as easy as you want to make it, because
this is a misuse of the Reply-To field. As far as I know, messages
compliant with the RFCs can't have two Reply-To fields (which one
Exactly my point.. If you took your time and read (instead of scanning)
the message before replying, those "Ups I posted a private mail to the
mailing
list" mistakes wouldn't hapen with "Reply-To:" field set to the
mailinglist
address
Using stock Unix /bin/mail, try to
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 02:43:46PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#
#Exactly my point.. If you took your time and read (instead of scanning)
#the message before replying, those "Ups I posted a private mail to the
#mailing
#list" mistakes wouldn't hapen with "Reply-To:" field
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 11:52:22PM -, Russell Nelson wrote:
Tim Pierce writes:
Unfortunately, there's an awful lot of unreasonable mailers in the
world, which makes that philosophy impractical.
Pandering to the unreasonable mailers doesn't help. The chief cost is
one of
Tim Pierce writes:
Sounds great! I'm all ears. Where do we submit bug reports for
Microsoft Internet Mail, Microsoft Outlook, and WebTV?
The problem (as I see it) is that there is no requirements or even
guidelines for MUAs. How's about we get all the mailing list manager
people together,
On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 11:03:26PM -, Russell Nelson wrote:
Tim Pierce writes:
Sounds great! I'm all ears. Where do we submit bug reports for
Microsoft Internet Mail, Microsoft Outlook, and WebTV?
The problem (as I see it) is that there is no requirements or even
guidelines for
The problem (as I see it) is that there is no requirements or even
guidelines for MUAs. How's about we get all the mailing list manager
people together, and bash out a set of requirements that a mailing
list-friendly MUA will have. Then we either find a group to publish
them, or else create our
Racer X writes:
But there ARE requirements and guidelines for MUAs. They're called RFCs :)
Which RFC says ``Thou shalt have separate "Reply to Sender", "Reply to
List"[1], and "Reply to All" buttons''?
[1] which, of course, really means "Reply to Recipient", but that
action only makes sense
Hi!
Why doesn't Qmail mailing list set the
Reply To: field to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
It is very anoying that I must type the
mailing list address for every message
I respond to.
What if a poster is not a subscriber? he would set the reply-to field
to his personal
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 11:52:26AM +0300, Roman V. Isaev wrote:
On 02/17, Rok Papez wrote:
Why doesn't Qmail mailing list set the
Reply To: field to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
It is very anoying that I must type the
mailing list address for every message
I respond to.
Touchy
Why doesn't Qmail mailing list set the
Reply To: field to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
It is very anoying that I must type the
mailing list address for every message
I respond to.
Check out http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html for a great
reason *not* to set the Reply-To: header. Any
At 08:32 AM 2/17/99 -0500, Peter Green wrote:
Check out http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html for a great
reason *not* to set the Reply-To: header. Any reasonable mailer should
have some sort of "reply to (l)ist, (s)ender, (b)oth" option.
And also see the discussion forum that's linked
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 08:32:16AM -0500, Peter Green wrote:
Why doesn't Qmail mailing list set the
Reply To: field to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
It is very anoying that I must type the
mailing list address for every message
I respond to.
Check out
Fact: SMTP does not guarantee that you won't see two copies of any
given message. We all know this, right? It's come up again and again,
and the fair comment is always that anyone who cares about that problem
will have their MTA set up to deal with it.
Irony: what's the point of complaining if
38 matches
Mail list logo
