It is fine the way it is as of now, in fact I quite like the change as it means I no longer get broken threads in my inbox which leads to it being cluttered. so my vote lies with the change, I use to use a Linux machine but found it beyond my comprehension so migrated back to windows. Florian you made a good choice and I am glad that you have made it and it must be noted that no matter what one can do you will never be able to please everybody as that is one of the raw elements of human nature because as I am sure your all aware humans do no not generally like a lot of change of difference and that is one of the major root causes of all disputes!
Regards Anthony :) On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, at 03:07 AM, Girvin R. Herr wrote: > > > webmaster-Kracked_P_P wrote: > > On 08/13/2012 07:36 PM, Mark LaPierre wrote: > >> On 08/12/2012 12:31 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> this is to inform you that the reply settings on this list have changed > >>> (so-called "Reply to mangling" has been disabled). > >>> > >>> So far, e-mails had set a reply-to the mailing list address. In other > >>> words, with any e-mail client, replies to e-mails on the list were > >>> automatically sent directly to the list. > >>> > >>> In the past, this lead to two major problems: > >>> > >>> 1. Several times, people have sent direct replies to the public list, > >>> where deleting them is nearly impossible. I remember at least one case > >>> where confidential information has been sent out that caused lots of > >>> worries for the sender and his employer. This happened because people > >>> hit "reply" and thought it would reply to the sender only. > >>> > >>> 2. I have heard complaints in the past from people, stating that > >>> working > >>> with the non-developer lists of LibreOffice is a pain for them, because > >>> of reply-to mangling, resulting in a lack of communication. This also > >>> led to the fact that numerous tasks were done by the same people, who > >>> needed to spend more and more time, instead of sharing the work burden > >>> with others. While I do not fully believe this argument, there's just > >>> one way to find out... > >>> > >>> Therefore, I have applied a change: > >>> > >>> Replies to e-mails from the list now only go to the original sender. > >>> You > >>> either need to use the "reply to all" feature of your e-mail > >>> program, or > >>> - preferably - the "reply to list"/"reply to group" feature, which will > >>> direct replies directly to the list. > >>> > >>> This is common practice on most mailing lists, and even the default > >>> setting for our mailing list software, so we did not re-invent the > >>> wheel > >>> here. Those seeking for details should have a look at > >>> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > >>> > >>> I know we had numerous discussions on this topic in the past, but the > >>> outcome was that roughly 50% were for this change, and 50% refused it, > >>> so I am really sitting between two chairs here, for which I beg for > >>> your > >>> understanding. On the one hand, those complaining the lists are > >>> unusable > >>> with reply-to mangling, on the other hand, those complaining the lists > >>> are unusable without reply-to mangling. Unfortunately, combining those > >>> two, even on a per-recipient basis, is not possible, so they are > >>> mutually exclusive to each other. > >>> > >>> In order to find out the real impact, I simply changed the setting, and > >>> again, I beg for your understanding. > >>> > >>> Do not worry: The mailing lists are for the community, so it's the > >>> community deciding how they should work. What I'd like to ask all of > >>> you > >>> is to try out for a few days if that change is good for each list or > >>> not. Should we find out it is more harmful than it helps, I will > >>> immediately switch back to the old behaviour. > >>> > >>> Sorry for this short notice, and I beg for your understanding that I'm > >>> somehow sitting between two chairs here. > >>> > >>> Florian > >>> > >> > >> Hey All, > >> > >> Not trying to be rude. All of you should be smart enough to run an > >> email tool. After all you're all Linux users who administer at least > >> one Linux installation. > >> > >> For those of you having trouble with email filters try filtering on > >> "libreoffice-users" in the subject line. That should get all your > >> email to the right folder. > >> > > > > I filter on email address. > > > > LibreO - Website folder gets <webs...@global.libreoffice.org> > > LibreO - Projects Global folder gets <proje...@global.libreoffice.org> > > LibreO - Marketing US folder gets <market...@us.libreoffice.org> > > LibreO - Marketing Global folder gets <market...@global.libreoffice.org> > > LibreO - Users Global folder gets <users@global.libreoffice.org> > > > > So each list goes into its own folder in Thunderbird. > > > > I also have different folders for newsletters, friends, family, > > organizations I deal with, domain related, purchases via Amazon and > > PayPal accounts, etc., etc.. All of these folders are based on email > > address filtering and not subject line filtering. So, once I get an > > email from a "proper source", then I get to decide which folder that > > email address will go into. Subject lines and other filtering methods > > do not work as well for me. Every email that gets left in the general > > "inbox", that I am sharing with 12 email addresses I check with > > Thunderbird, could be potential SPAM or missed valid emails from known > > people. Some of the emails I receive that come from addresses that > > are automatically forwarded to my TRASH folder without me ever seeing > > any emails from those "known" SPAM sites/addresses. 95% of the all > > the daily emails I receive will go into a folder instead of the > > "default inbox". Most of those that come into that inbox are from > > people or companies I have not received from before. So, I get only a > > few "unknown" emails to go through myself. Works for me. > > > > > > > Webmaster..., > That's sort of what I do. I think I discovered the secret. In this > group now, it appears when someone "Reply-All"s to a posting, The "To:" > comes from the "From:" posting header entry, which is the poster's > address and not practical to filter on in this case. However, the group > address (users@global.libreoffice.org) is inserted into the "Cc:" > field. So, tried using "users@global.libreoffice.org" in both the "Cc:" > filter field as well as the "To:" filter field. I don't know what > side-effects this will generate in the long run, but it seems to be > working for me so far. I never filter on "Subject:" unless there is > some constant in there to grab onto and it is the only option. Another > poster above suggested filtering on the "[libreoffice-users]" in the > subject field. That should work, but I don't trust it to stay > constant. However, that is an option. > Girvin Herr > > > -- > For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > deleted > -- antiso...@myopera.com -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
