[opensuse-factory] Re: Introducing the new mailinglist server
hvogel@opensuse.org 10-08-2006 19:36 >>> 1.9 Reply-To munging
We do not "munge" the mail headers by inserting a "Reply-To: <listname>@opensuse.org" anymore because it makes it more difficult subscribers to handle the mail the way they want to. Your mail client probably has a "reply" function as well as a "reply to all" or "reply to list" one; Please use the latter if you want you message to go to the list and not just to the original poster.
Hi, That's in fact something I will really miss in the near future. It was so conveniant to be able just to reply to a message and not to worry that the reply went to the mailing list. Most of the time exactlythis IS the requested feature. In very rare circumstances, users want and should reply to the auther itself. Even if it's about a technical question, a solution for a specific problem: still the community and future users might be interested in a solution, especially when googling, they might have chances to find it. What do others think about this on that list? Dominique
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
hvogel@opensuse.org 10-08-2006 19:36 >>> 1.9 Reply-To munging
We do not "munge" the mail headers by inserting a "Reply-To: <listname>@opensuse.org" anymore because it makes it more difficult subscribers to handle the mail the way they want to. Your mail client probably has a "reply" function as well as a "reply to all" or "reply to list" one; Please use the latter if you want you message to go to the list and not just to the original poster.
Hi,
That's in fact something I will really miss in the near future. It was so conveniant to be able just to reply to a message and not to worry that the reply went to the mailing list.
Most of the time exactlythis IS the requested feature. In very rare circumstances, users want and should reply to the auther itself. Even if it's about a technical question, a solution for a specific problem: still the community and future users might be interested in a solution, especially when googling, they might have chances to find it.
What do others think about this on that list?
(reply-to should go to the list) + 1 -- Andreas Vetter Tel: +49 (0)931 888-5890 Fakultaet fuer Physik und Astronomie Fax: +49 (0)931 888-5508 Universitaet Wuerzburg
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 03:03:51PM +0200, Andreas Vetter wrote:
What do others think about this on that list?
(reply-to should go to the list) + 1
+1 Also people will start using a 'reply to all' so I get two mails. When I get a personal mail, I asume that the person does not want to mail the list for whatever reason. That will make me reply or react in a different way. (Almost send this to only Adreas. I probably have send some emails personaly that should have gone to the list) -- houghi Please to not toppost The blue light suddenly flashed on my horrified face. What a disaster! Oh, the humanity! I never thought it would happen to me. How terrifying it is to see for yourself "*The Blue Screen of Death*".
houghi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 03:03:51PM +0200, Andreas Vetter wrote:
What do others think about this on that list? (reply-to should go to the list) + 1
+1
Also people will start using a 'reply to all' so I get two mails. When I get a personal mail, I asume that the person does not want to mail the list for whatever reason. That will make me reply or react in a different way.
(Almost send this to only Adreas. I probably have send some emails personaly that should have gone to the list)
Make that 3. It's really clunky like this - we'll all get it wrong most of the time. I nearly did [get it wrong], sending this... -- Richard
Hi, On Friday, August 11, 2006 at 15:08:43, houghi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 03:03:51PM +0200, Andreas Vetter wrote:
What do others think about this on that list?
(reply-to should go to the list) + 1
+1
Please read http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html Henne -- Henne Vogelsang, Core Services "Rules change. The Game remains the same." - Omar (The Wire)
On 06/08/11 15:56 (GMT+0200) Henne Vogelsang apparently typed:
On Friday, August 11, 2006 at 15:08:43, houghi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 03:03:51PM +0200, Andreas Vetter wrote:
What do others think about this on that list?
(reply-to should go to the list) + 1
+1
Please read
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
Now read: http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html and remember, this is a group discussion list, not a public questions/private answers list. There is infrequently any need for private replies to posters of such lists. It benefits the group greatly to have most answers available to all subscribers. As a consequence, the ease with which the exceptions may reply privately or not is simply not important. -- "Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." Galatians 6:9 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
* Felix Miata
On 06/08/11 15:56 (GMT+0200) Henne Vogelsang apparently typed:
Now read: http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html
but reading the 'reply-to-still...' is necessary to realize that your offering, 'reply-to-useful...' has been successfully refuted by written standards. all that leaves is *opinion*, and preaching -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
On 06/08/11 15:56 (GMT+0200) Henne Vogelsang apparently typed:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
On Friday 11 August 2006 16:01, Felix Miata wrote:
Now read: http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html
... which is mentioned, and demolished, in the second of Henne's references.
On 06/08/11 18:18 (GMT+0100) William Gallafent apparently typed:
On 06/08/11 15:56 (GMT+0200) Henne Vogelsang apparently typed:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
On Friday 11 August 2006 16:01, Felix Miata wrote:
Now read: http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html
... which is mentioned, and demolished, in the second of Henne's references.
"Demolished" is mere opinion, not fact. That cite omits discussion of two key characteristics of public discussion lists: 1-Subscribers don't receive messages from authors, they receive messages from listservs. 2-The principle of least surprise dictates that public messages automatically receive public replies in the absence of special handling by those who wish their message to go someplace other than from whence it came. The message each subscriber received did not come directly from any author, and consequently it should not be expected to go directly back to any author. -- "Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." Galatians 6:9 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
Hi, On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Felix Miata wrote:
On 06/08/11 18:18 (GMT+0100) William Gallafent apparently typed:
On 06/08/11 15:56 (GMT+0200) Henne Vogelsang apparently typed:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
On Friday 11 August 2006 16:01, Felix Miata wrote:
Now read: http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html
... which is mentioned, and demolished, in the second of Henne's references.
"Demolished" is mere opinion, not fact. That cite omits discussion of two key characteristics of public discussion lists:
1-Subscribers don't receive messages from authors, they receive messages from listservs.
2-The principle of least surprise dictates that public messages automatically receive public replies in the absence of special handling by those who wish their message to go someplace other than from whence it came. The message each subscriber received did not come directly from any author, and consequently it should not be expected to go directly back to any author.
That's the point. Seconded. Cheers -e -- Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)
Felix Miata a écrit :
1-Subscribers don't receive messages from authors, they receive messages from listservs.
I've never seen a list server write a message :-)
2-The principle of least surprise dictates that public messages automatically receive public replies in the absence of special handling by those who wish their message to go someplace other than from whence it came. The message each subscriber received did not come directly from any author, and consequently it should not be expected to go directly back to any author.
the list is made of several people, so the use of "reply to all" seems the very more obvious system. in fact there is little difference between the two setups, the problems comes because some people come from a list that uses one setup and are not acostumed to the other. personnally I was really upset by the fact that opensuse and suse lists did not use the same setup. Now it's the same, easy to comply with... jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://dodin.org/galerie_photo_web/expo/index.html http://lucien.dodin.net http://fr.susewiki.org/index.php?title=Gérer_ses_photos
On 06/08/11 18:14 (GMT+0200) jdd apparently typed:
Felix Miata a écrit :
1-Subscribers don't receive messages from authors, they receive messages from listservs.
I've never seen a list server write a message :-)
I've never been able to figure out how to get emails from strangers on a particular subject of personal interest without subscribing to some listserv that will somehow find and send such to me. -- "Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." Galatians 6:9 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 06:14:04PM +0200, jdd wrote:
the list is made of several people, so the use of "reply to all" seems the very more obvious system.
No, it is not the obvious one. For me the obvious one is to asnwer to the group. That group is not 'all'. It is the readers of the mailinglist. Just as when I send a new message that I send to the mailinglist. Just as when I recieve a message that I get from the mailinglist. Why must a reply be any different?
in fact there is little difference between the two setups, the problems comes because some people come from a list that uses one setup and are not acostumed to the other.
I did not come from anywhere. I was here already and the administrator decided to change the settings. -- houghi Please to not toppost The blue light suddenly flashed on my horrified face. What a disaster! Oh, the humanity! I never thought it would happen to me. How terrifying it is to see for yourself "*The Blue Screen of Death*".
My last "contribution", I think. _Conventions_ (such as top-posting versus inline-replies, or attachments allowed versus attachments disallowed) do vary from list to list. _Standards_, such as RFC2822 or MIME, don't refer to any particular list, but to _all_ email. We have to hope that the people formulating standards have thought carefully before finalising those standards, so that they make sense, and work well. At this point it really has come to a matter of opinion: some think RFC2822 makes sense as a standard for email, and others don't. My belief is that this standard (RFC2822) has been carefully constructed to reflect what people want, according to decades of experience, and as such it does make sense. Indeed, it replaced RFC822 after that no longer matched what people want. I think that this crux of this conversation now reduces to: - Everybody wants it to be easy for a reply to a list message to go only to the list - There exist standard headers to facilitate this, which the list software sets correctly, and which conformant mail clients interpret correctly. RFC2369 dates from 1998, and RFC2919 from 2001, so implementors have had a while now to add support. - Certain commonly used mail clients do not understand those headers (with one in particular having an open bug with a known-working patch to add this support!) - Users of those mail clients which lack support for these headers wish the list to contravene the standard by subverting another header, which serves a different purpose, but which their mail clients do understand, instead of fixing their mail client or switching to a conformant one, of which many are available. My solution: Two opensuse-factory mailing lists, one which sets Reply-To and the other which doesn't. May the best approach win ;)
William Gallafent a écrit :
- Certain commonly used mail clients do not understand those headers (with one in particular having an open bug with a known-working patch to add this support!)
may be adding this patch to the suse version, as Pascal did? should at least be a partial solution jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://dodin.org/galerie_photo_web/expo/index.html http://lucien.dodin.net http://fr.susewiki.org/index.php?title=Gérer_ses_photos
jdd wrote:
William Gallafent a écrit :
- Certain commonly used mail clients do not understand those headers (with one in particular having an open bug with a known-working patch to add this support!)
may be adding this patch to the suse version, as Pascal did?
should at least be a partial solution
jdd
I just installed Pascall's patched Thunderbird and still it doesn't show Reply to List, option. I'll try to reinstall it. -- Regards, Rajko. Visit http://en.opensuse.org/MiniSUSE
Hi, Rajko M schrieb:
I just installed Pascall's patched Thunderbird and still it doesn't show Reply to List, option. I'll try to reinstall it.
you need the extension from http://open.nit.ca/wiki/index.php?page=ReplyToListThunderbirdExtension in _addition_ to the patch. The patch just allows you to use this extension, it does not add the Reply-to-List feature. This is done by the extension. Andreas Hanke
Hi, jdd schrieb:
may be adding this patch to the suse version, as Pascal did?
Since the lack of this feature and the discussions about it bug me, too, and I couldn't find an existing report, I just went ahead and reported this as an enhancement request: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199125 So people can easily track the progress. Andreas Hanke
On 06/08/13 19:46 (GMT+0200) jdd apparently typed:
William Gallafent a écrit :
- Certain commonly used mail clients do not understand those headers (with one in particular having an open bug with a known-working patch to add this support!)
may be adding this patch to the suse version, as Pascal did?
should at least be a partial solution
Very partial. It can't address the issue that far from all subscribers use SuSE for their email to the list. Making a howto for the extension easy to find for new subscribers might help. Probably best would be a campaign to include the function as a basic TB feature. Everybody should be voting for https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233417 to get it prioritized. I think inclusion by default is what SeaMonkey will do eventually. -- "Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." Galatians 6:9 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
Felix Miata wrote:
On 06/08/13 19:46 (GMT+0200) jdd apparently typed:
William Gallafent a écrit :
- Certain commonly used mail clients do not understand those headers (with one in particular having an open bug with a known-working patch to add this support!)
may be adding this patch to the suse version, as Pascal did?
should at least be a partial solution
Very partial. It can't address the issue that far from all subscribers use SuSE for their email to the list. Making a howto for the extension easy to find for new subscribers might help. Probably best would be a campaign to include the function as a basic TB feature. Everybody should be voting for https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233417 to get it prioritized.
I think inclusion by default is what SeaMonkey will do eventually.
It is interesting that everybody want's to blame Mozilla. Maybe SUSE should issue patch first and then change mail list configuration. How about that? -- Regards, Rajko.
On 06/08/13 14:03 (GMT+0100) William Gallafent apparently typed:
My solution: Two opensuse-factory mailing lists, one which sets Reply-To and the other which doesn't. May the best approach win ;)
Interesting idea, but I would think it wouldn't take two separate lists to accomplish that purpose. Simply provide a subscriber selectable option, something like choosing between individual emails and a digest. -- "Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." Galatians 6:9 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
On Friday 11 August 2006 16:57, Felix Miata wrote:
"Demolished" is mere opinion, not fact.
OK, I'll expand. It is vital for any system that its subsystems conform to its standards. Electricity: BS1362 and BS1363 for the physical connector to the wall (in the UK), CENELEC 230V 50Hz for the signal (in much of Europe). Ethernet: IEEE 802.3. The internet: Internet Protocol. Packets on the internet: Transmission Control Protocol or User Datagram Protocol, amongst others. Email: IETF RFC2822. British roads: drive on the left and follow the highway code. Failure of any actor in one of those systems to conform to the standards is at best troublesome, and at worst catastrophic. I expect my own behaviour and tools to conform to the standards when interacting with any of those systems, and I expect the rest of the system, including the tools used by other end-users and the people running the system itself, to conform to them too.
That cite omits discussion of two key characteristics of public discussion lists:
1-Subscribers don't receive messages from authors, they receive messages from listservs.
Wrong. They receive messages _from_ authors _via_ listservers (and relays). The originator of a message is unique; there may be any number of systems which relay / resend / transmit it between its original sending and its final receipt.
2-The principle of least surprise dictates that public messages automatically receive public replies in the absence of special handling by those who wish their message to go someplace other than from whence it came.
Again, the message came _from_ its author, _via_ the list server. The principle of least surprise dictates that when I use the command "reply to author" in my email client, the reply is addressed to the author. If the list has altered the Reply-To address to be the mailing list address (or has added it when it was not originally present), that is unlikely to be the case, since the message headers now erroneously declare that the originator of the message wished replies to be sent to the mailing list. The originator of the message made no such declaration. Reply-To is an "originator field", described in 3.6.2 in the RFC. As such, it must, if present, contain information about the originator (author) of a message, not about one of the systems which processed it subsequently. It's not a "resent field" or a "trace field", both of which may be added by systems performing onward transmission of the message. To quote, "When the 'Reply-To:' field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent." Note, _the_author_of_the_message_. So, any mailing list user has the right to place the list address in the Reply-To field, if he or she wants to. The mailing list server does not have that right. If a list server should have the right to make a statement automatically on behalf of the originator of a message, then why shouldn't one of the other systems which transmitted it during its journey from originator to final receiver also have that right? Clearly absurd.
The message each subscriber received did not come directly from any author, and consequently it should not be expected to go directly back to any author.
I assume "it" should read "replies to it". (Apologies if not.) Put simply, a "reply to author" should go to the author (potentially impossible if Reply-To set or modified by list server). A "reply to list" should go to the list. The behaviour of a generic "reply" command, if present in a given mail client, when the message being replied to contains mailing list headers, should be configurable by a user according to personal preference. It might be addressed to the list, to the author, or to both. Nobody other than the originator (author) of the message has the right to add the Reply-To header, and, furthermore, any system which does so potentially prevents recipients of the message from replying to its originator, should they wish to do so.
On 06/08/11 18:28 (GMT+0100) William Gallafent apparently typed:
On Friday 11 August 2006 16:57, Felix Miata wrote:
"Demolished" is mere opinion, not fact.
OK, I'll expand. It is vital for any system that its subsystems conform to its standards.
Discussion list email isn't ordinary email. Standards can be inadequate. Vitality depends on the system and the circumstances. I submit that for discussion lists rfc 2822 is not vital because of its inadequate coverage of the distinctive characteristics of public discussion list email and the users of the many pre-2822 and poorly-supporting-2822 email clients who frequent them.
That cite omits discussion of two key characteristics of public discussion lists:
1-Subscribers don't receive messages from authors, they receive messages from listservs.
Wrong. They receive messages _from_ authors _via_ listservers (and relays).
Without the listserv, I get nothing. I got it from the listserv, not from Patrick Shanahan or William Gallafent. Without the listserv, I didn't know Patrick Shanahan or William Gallafent existed. I didn't subscribe to Patrick Shanahan's or William Gallafent's personal opinion of opensuse-factory personal email fountain. Without the subscription and without the listserv, I get nothing. When I subscribe, I have no concern of the names or email address of other subscribers, including those who post to the list. What I get comes from the list, via authors who are no direct concern of mine, and to whom I normally have no interest in responding via email directly to as any consequence of anything they may write as a consequence of my and their subscriptions.
The originator of a message is unique; there may be any number of systems which relay / resend / transmit it between its original sending and its final receipt.
Regardless of those irrelevancies, without the list, I get nothing. It's indispensable to me getting anything at all from my subscription, and the relevant and most direct source of the email I do get as a consequence of that subscription.
2-The principle of least surprise dictates that public messages automatically receive public replies in the absence of special handling by those who wish their message to go someplace other than from whence it came.
Again, the message came _from_ its author, _via_ the list server.
I didn't get it from an author. I got it from a listserv, so I expect my reply to default to the listserv, so that everyone else who got the same thing I got from the same listserv gets their own personal copy of what I wrote in reply to what that listserv sent to my email box. If I choose to deviate from the norm and send a reply to some destination other than that from whence I received it, I, as well as anyone else, am capable of either typing in or copying and pasting or otherwise providing a suitable substitute destination. This is how it works on 3/4 of the 30+ discussion lists I subscribe to. That other 1/4 constitutes the exception to what the apparent majority finds works best, notwithstanding what any rfc has to say about how one-to-one email should work. -- "Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." Galatians 6:9 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
Felix Miata a écrit :
Discussion list email isn't ordinary email. Standards can be inadequate.
the standards discussed here are mailing-lists standards. Standards are always inadequates... in some situations, and necessary/mandatory in some others. _any_ change in a standard _must_ be very seriously and carefully examined. like anybody should know, don't change things that works. So, standards can/may change when the situation that created this standard change. AFAIK the mailing lists system is the same for years and don't change (I don't speak of the -not so- particular opensuse one). so no change, nos standard change. this wont mean that change can't come if somebody have with a really new argument. I see none here. jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://dodin.org/galerie_photo_web/expo/index.html http://lucien.dodin.net http://fr.susewiki.org/index.php?title=Gérer_ses_photos
Hi, On Friday, August 11, 2006 at 11:01:43, Felix Miata wrote:
On 06/08/11 15:56 (GMT+0200) Henne Vogelsang apparently typed:
On Friday, August 11, 2006 at 15:08:43, houghi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 03:03:51PM +0200, Andreas Vetter wrote:
What do others think about this on that list?
(reply-to should go to the list) + 1
+1
Please read
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
Now read: http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html
and remember, this is a group discussion list, not a public questions/private answers list. There is infrequently any need for private replies to posters of such lists. It benefits the group greatly to have most answers available to all subscribers. As a consequence, the ease with which the exceptions may reply privately or not is simply not important.
The part of the "problem" that is about "where should the default answer go to" is totally debateable i agree. There are good arguments for both sides and i wouldnt like to decide based on them. You and the author of that page forget one thing. Its impossible to set a reply to if the list adds one. The mailinglist software has to remove all reply-to headers first and the insert the list one. So if i want answers only to some mailbox (there are tons of reasons to do so) reply-to munging makes this impossible. Henne P.S. That the page cites the wrong (old) RFC is there too but oh well.. -- Henne Vogelsang, http://hennevogel.de "To die. In the rain. Alone." Ernest Hemingway
Henne Vogelsang wrote:
You and the author of that page forget one thing. Its impossible to set a reply to if the list adds one. The mailinglist software has to remove all reply-to headers first and the insert the list one. So if i want answers only to some mailbox (there are tons of reasons to do so) reply-to munging makes this impossible.
Mailman, at least, *adds* a Reply-to header -- it does not remove/munge existing headers. So if an original post includes a Reply-to header and the Mailman list server is configured for "Reply to List" then what the list subscribers receive includes both Reply-to headers. And the mailers that I use (TB and Evo) both deal with multiple Reply-to headers in a reasonable way. -Tom (Who dislikes with the new mailing list behavior) -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key
Hi, On Friday, August 11, 2006 at 14:24:57, Tom Eastep wrote:
Henne Vogelsang wrote:
You and the author of that page forget one thing. Its impossible to set a reply to if the list adds one. The mailinglist software has to remove all reply-to headers first and the insert the list one. So if i want answers only to some mailbox (there are tons of reasons to do so) reply-to munging makes this impossible.
Mailman, at least, *adds* a Reply-to header -- it does not remove/munge existing headers. So if an original post includes a Reply-to header and the Mailman list server is configured for "Reply to List" then what the list subscribers receive includes both Reply-to headers.
Another reason to hate mailman 8) From RFC 2822: The following table indicates limits on the number of times each field may occur in a message header as well as any special limitations on the use of those fields. Field Min number Max number reply-to 0 1 Henne -- Henne Vogelsang, http://hennevogel.de "To die. In the rain. Alone." Ernest Hemingway
You and the author of that page forget one thing. Its impossible to set a reply to if the list adds one.
Only if the list manager is dumb enough to replace an existing reply-to:, and thus overrides the explicit request of the email's author. I fear those who anally bash standards which don't discuss the problem, let alone address it, and those who try to address a common problem will never come to an agreement. This is one way to ensure consistency locally: :0 fhw * ^List-[a-z]*:.*opensuse-factory@opensuse.org | formail -I"Reply-To: opensuse-factory@opensuse.org" Btw thanks to Felix Miata for a beautiful argumentation! <stir>That should pretty much demolish http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html ...</stir> Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann is list0570 with the domain in header http://volker.dnsalias.net/ Please do not CC list postings to me.
Hi, On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
You and the author of that page forget one thing. Its impossible to set a reply to if the list adds one.
Only if the list manager is dumb enough to replace an existing reply-to:, and thus overrides the explicit request of the email's author.
I fear those who anally bash standards which don't discuss the problem, let alone address it, and those who try to address a common problem will never come to an agreement.
This is one way to ensure consistency locally:
:0 fhw * ^List-[a-z]*:.*opensuse-factory@opensuse.org | formail -I"Reply-To: opensuse-factory@opensuse.org"
Btw thanks to Felix Miata for a beautiful argumentation! <stir>That should pretty much demolish http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html ...</stir>
Yes. Let's hope that Felix' aspects will lead our list dictators to a change back. If not, the lists will run into the desert because too much answers go wrong, or they will run into starvation because people start unsubscribing because they feel penetrated by double answers (list and private). The opensuse mailing lists are "public forums" with "contributions", not discussions between individuals. Cheers -e -- Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)
Eberhard Moenkeberg a écrit :
If not, the lists will run into the desert because too much answers go wrong, or they will run into starvation because people start unsubscribing because they feel penetrated by double answers (list and private).
wether or not you like the new setup you may be aware that it's the very same setup of the suse-e mailing lits, one of the heaviest traffic suse one, so no, people wont go away (not for this reason, at least) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://dodin.org/galerie_photo_web/expo/index.html http://lucien.dodin.net http://fr.susewiki.org/index.php?title=Gérer_ses_photos
jdd wrote:
Eberhard Moenkeberg a écrit :
If not, the lists will run into the desert because too much answers go wrong, or they will run into starvation because people start unsubscribing because they feel penetrated by double answers (list and private).
wether or not you like the new setup you may be aware that it's the very same setup of the suse-e mailing lits, one of the heaviest traffic suse one, so no, people wont go away (not for this reason, at least)
jdd
The same as "one old list" that was set and software configured in times
without privacy concerns doesn't mean it is good. Now they are trying to
patch holes with a Spam Assassin, but what this can cover is just a part
of the problem.
I agree with Felix Miata's opinion and can't accept argument that
previous configuration is not in compliance with some RFC. That
standard, if it is written the way advocates have explained, is not near
to cover the philosophy of mail list, so any argument that calls for
compliance is either blindness for the facts, or hidden protection of
some other interest (email address harvesting, spam).
I'm subscribed to the list at opensuse.org and I want to communicate to
the list, not to private mailboxes of every user I reply to.
Can you see any logic in this:
To:jdd
Hi, On Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 06:16:32, Rajko M wrote:
jdd wrote:
Eberhard Moenkeberg a écrit :
If not, the lists will run into the desert because too much answers go wrong, or they will run into starvation because people start unsubscribing because they feel penetrated by double answers (list and private).
wether or not you like the new setup you may be aware that it's the very same setup of the suse-e mailing lits, one of the heaviest traffic suse one, so no, people wont go away (not for this reason, at least)
The same as "one old list" that was set and software configured in times without privacy concerns doesn't mean it is good. Now they are trying to patch holes with a Spam Assassin, but what this can cover is just a part of the problem.
What the heck are you talking about? Why would a reply-to field that is pointing to the list address prevent spam? Youre not making any sense. Please explain. Henne -- Henne Vogelsang, http://hennevogel.de "To die. In the rain. Alone." Ernest Hemingway
Henne Vogelsang wrote:
Hi,
On Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 06:16:32, Rajko M wrote:
Eberhard Moenkeberg a écrit :
If not, the lists will run into the desert because too much answers go wrong, or they will run into starvation because people start unsubscribing because they feel penetrated by double answers (list and private). wether or not you like the new setup you may be aware that it's the very same setup of the suse-e mailing lits, one of the heaviest traffic suse one, so no, people wont go away (not for this reason, at least) The same as "one old list" that was set and software configured in times without privacy concerns doesn't mean it is good. Now they are trying to
jdd wrote: patch holes with a Spam Assassin, but what this can cover is just a part of the problem.
What the heck are you talking about? Why would a reply-to field that is pointing to the list address prevent spam? Youre not making any sense. Please explain.
Henne
If you wouldn't be focused to reaction on recent changes, than my posting will make sense. Reply to filed will prevent nothing, and I didn't refer to that at all in a quoted paragraph. The recent change is inconvenience as I have to edit header for every posting. I really don't want to reply to anybody privately and the TB that has well solved privacy protection, has 2 options: 1. Reply to Sender 2. Reply to All They work both as the name tells for peer to peer mails. With list 1. gives a private email and the 2. all private and the list. The Spam Assassin protects the lists from the spam that some might post to, but contributors are not protected from harvesters. That is what I meant as partially solved problem. What I would like to see is something like what you applied in the mail list archives, overwriting of private mail addresses with xxxxxxxxxx, which is excellent. If that would be possible for mails that list server sends to subscribers, than is solved the second problem of protecting the subscribers. -- Regards, Rajko. Visit http://en.opensuse.org/MiniSUSE
Hello, Am Samstag, 12. August 2006 16:17 schrieb Rajko M:
What I would like to see is something like what you applied in the mail list archives, overwriting of private mail addresses with xxxxxxxxxx, which is excellent. If that would be possible for mails that list server sends to subscribers, than is solved the second problem of protecting the subscribers.
Are you talking about replacing the From: header? Short answer: PLEASE do NOT do that! Sometimes there are good reasons to reply privatly, this would be impossible then. The long answer would be a large spam-protection vs. usability text, but currently I don't have the time to write this. Therefore I'll give you a short summary only: the best (and only) way not to receive spam is not to have a mail address *g* Gruß Christian Boltz PS: If you really think the opensuse lists cause too much spam for you (I doubt that's the case), use your "regular" mail address for receiving the list and a nomail subscription with a (short-living) freemail account you never read (or even a /dev/null address) for posting ;-) --
We are working on php4 updates but we are not able to release them before the second week of january since most developers and testers are not available. Ho-hum. It might have been wise to allow for vulnerabilities that get discovered during holidays. Worms don't usually keep track of people's vacations. [> Marcus Meissner and maarten in suse-security]
Christian Boltz wrote:
Hello,
Am Samstag, 12. August 2006 16:17 schrieb Rajko M:
What I would like to see is something like what you applied in the mail list archives, overwriting of private mail addresses with xxxxxxxxxx, which is excellent. If that would be possible for mails that list server sends to subscribers, than is solved the second problem of protecting the subscribers.
Are you talking about replacing the From: header?
Short answer: PLEASE do NOT do that! Sometimes there are good reasons to reply privately, this would be impossible then.
:-) Don't worry, Henne is the boss and he already answered. I can talk as much as I want, nothing happens.
The long answer would be a large spam-protection vs. usability text, but currently I don't have the time to write this.
No need. I agree. The list server configuration is a balance, between opposite requirements defined by privacy and functionality, that the most people feel as comfortable.
Therefore I'll give you a short summary only: the best (and only) way not to receive spam is not to have a mail address *g*
This is the matter of balance too :-)
Gruß
Christian Boltz
PS: If you really think the opensuse lists cause too much spam for you (I doubt that's the case), use your "regular" mail address for receiving the list and a nomail subscription with a (short-living) freemail account you never read (or even a /dev/null address) for posting ;-)
The other already applied that. That is why I got few mail server responses about undeliverable emails, when I forgot to remove private address from header. -- Regards, Rajko. Visit http://en.opensuse.org/MiniSUSE
Hi, On Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 09:17:13, Rajko M wrote:
Henne Vogelsang wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 06:16:32, Rajko M wrote:
Eberhard Moenkeberg a écrit :
If not, the lists will run into the desert because too much answers go wrong, or they will run into starvation because people start unsubscribing because they feel penetrated by double answers (list and private). wether or not you like the new setup you may be aware that it's the very same setup of the suse-e mailing lits, one of the heaviest traffic suse one, so no, people wont go away (not for this reason, at least) The same as "one old list" that was set and software configured in times without privacy concerns doesn't mean it is good. Now they are trying to
jdd wrote: patch holes with a Spam Assassin, but what this can cover is just a part of the problem.
What the heck are you talking about? Why would a reply-to field that is pointing to the list address prevent spam? Youre not making any sense. Please explain.
If you wouldn't be focused to reaction on recent changes, than my posting will make sense. Reply to filed will prevent nothing, and I didn't refer to that at all in a quoted paragraph.
The recent change is inconvenience as I have to edit header for every posting. I really don't want to reply to anybody privately and the TB that has well solved privacy protection, has 2 options: 1. Reply to Sender 2. Reply to All They work both as the name tells for peer to peer mails. With list 1. gives a private email and the 2. all private and the list.
I got that. Thunderbird has no list-reply. Thats the fault of Thunderbird. There even are bugreport about it in the mozilla bugzilla.
The Spam Assassin protects the lists from the spam that some might post to
There is no single spam mail going trough any of our lists. This is not because they are protected by filtering but because spammers dont subscribe to mailinglists. They need a valid email account to subscribe to the list because subscribing is interactive and this is costing them more than they get out of one mail they get to send to the list subscribers (because they know for sure that the email address will be unsubscribed/blocked once they did send spam). So its simply to costly for them to send spam to subscribers only mailinglists.
but contributors are not protected from harvesters. That is what I meant as partially solved problem.
I see. Now youre making sense :)
What I would like to see is something like what you applied in the mail list archives, overwriting of private mail addresses with xxxxxxxxxx, which is excellent. If that would be possible for mails that list server sends to subscribers, than is solved the second problem of protecting the subscribers.
This is not possible. I dont know any mailinglist software that does this. And im even not sure if i would be willing to pay the price of total anonymity on our mailinglist to protect subscribers from address harvesting. Henne -- Henne Vogelsang, http://hennevogel.de "To die. In the rain. Alone." Ernest Hemingway
Henne Vogelsang wrote:
Hi,
On Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 09:17:13, Rajko M wrote:
Eberhard Moenkeberg a écrit :
If not, the lists will run into the desert because too much answers go wrong, or they will run into starvation because people start unsubscribing because they feel penetrated by double answers (list and private). wether or not you like the new setup you may be aware that it's the very same setup of the suse-e mailing lits, one of the heaviest traffic suse one, so no, people wont go away (not for this reason, at least) The same as "one old list" that was set and software configured in times without privacy concerns doesn't mean it is good. Now they are trying to
jdd wrote: patch holes with a Spam Assassin, but what this can cover is just a part of the problem. What the heck are you talking about? Why would a reply-to field that is
On Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 06:16:32, Rajko M wrote: pointing to the list address prevent spam? Youre not making any sense. Please explain. If you wouldn't be focused to reaction on recent changes, than my
Henne Vogelsang wrote: posting will make sense. Reply to filed will prevent nothing, and I didn't refer to that at all in a quoted paragraph.
The recent change is inconvenience as I have to edit header for every posting. I really don't want to reply to anybody privately and the TB that has well solved privacy protection, has 2 options: 1. Reply to Sender 2. Reply to All They work both as the name tells for peer to peer mails. With list 1. gives a private email and the 2. all private and the list.
I got that. Thunderbird has no list-reply. Thats the fault of Thunderbird. There even are bugreport about it in the mozilla bugzilla.
The Spam Assassin protects the lists from the spam that some might post to
There is no single spam mail going trough any of our lists. This is not because they are protected by filtering but because spammers dont subscribe to mailinglists. They need a valid email account to subscribe to the list because subscribing is interactive and this is costing them more than they get out of one mail they get to send to the list subscribers (because they know for sure that the email address will be unsubscribed/blocked once they did send spam). So its simply to costly for them to send spam to subscribers only mailinglists.
I've seen one try, but it never happened again.
but contributors are not protected from harvesters. That is what I meant as partially solved problem.
I see. Now youre making sense :)
Did I? Yoopie :-D
What I would like to see is something like what you applied in the mail list archives, overwriting of private mail addresses with xxxxxxxxxx, which is excellent. If that would be possible for mails that list server sends to subscribers, than is solved the second problem of protecting the subscribers.
This is not possible. I dont know any mailinglist software that does this. And im even not sure if i would be willing to pay the price of total anonymity on our mailinglist to protect subscribers from address harvesting.
Henne
I've seen Christian's comment moments before so I can agree that anonymity and functionality need balance. I'm just upset when I see how much effort is used to avoid spam filters in the mails I get. -- Regards, Rajko. Visit http://en.opensuse.org/MiniSUSE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Henne Vogelsang wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 09:17:13, Rajko M wrote: [...]
The recent change is inconvenience as I have to edit header for every posting. I really don't want to reply to anybody privately and the TB that has well solved privacy protection, has 2 options: 1. Reply to Sender 2. Reply to All They work both as the name tells for peer to peer mails. With list 1. gives a private email and the 2. all private and the list.
I got that. Thunderbird has no list-reply. Thats the fault of Thunderbird. There even are bugreport about it in the mozilla bugzilla.
Right. Unfortunately Thunderbird doesn't have that feature and most
probably won't have it before 3.0 (scheduled around Q2 2007).
But... I've built MozillaThunderbird RPMs for 10.1 and 10.0 (both i686
and x86_64) that include a 3rd party patch to add a "reply to list" action.
More information here:
http://open.nit.ca/wiki/index.php?page=ReplyToListThunderbirdExtension&7
To install those patched MozillaThunderbird RPMs, add the following
repository to yast2/zmd/rug/smart/yum:
http://ftp.skynet.be/pub/suser-guru/thunderbird/10.1/
or
http://ftp.skynet.be/pub/suser-guru/thunderbird/10.0/
Those RPMs are signed with my GPG key (58857177):
http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/guru-rpm.asc
Fingerprint is:
E02F 0C4A CE1A 27C3 D082 C8EE AF73 4C5A 5885 7177
(this email is signed with the same key, which is attached to this mail
as well)
e.g. when using smart on 10.1:
$ smart channel --add \
http://ftp.skynet.be/pub/suser-guru/thunderbird/10.1/MozillaThunderbird-list...
$ smart update thunderbird-listreply
$ smart upgrade MozillaThunderbird\*
You must also install the following extension (XPI):
http://open.nit.ca/wiki/attachments/replytolist-0.1.3.xpi
(download it somewhere on your local disk (e.g. using wget), open
Thunderbird and then: Tools > Extensions > Install)
I've also upgraded the bundled EnigMail to 0.94.1
For those who are interested and/or would like to help, please install
that package and test it. I made some basic tests with it on 10.1/x86_64
and 10.0/i686 and it works for me.
I've also contacted Wolfgang Rosenauer (who maintains the mozilla
packages at SUSE) to let him know, he's been having an eye on that patch
for a while and will provide new builds of thunderbird at the usual
place (*) that include the above mentioned patch.
(*) ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/mozilla/10.1
Note that all the credits go to Wolfgang, I've merely added that patch
to his src RPM ;)
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
Hi, On 2006-08-13 at 13:34:18 +0200, Pascal Bleser wrote (shortened):
I got that. Thunderbird has no list-reply. Thats the fault of Thunderbird. There even are bugreport about it in the mozilla bugzilla.
Right. Unfortunately Thunderbird doesn't have that feature and most probably won't have it before 3.0 (scheduled around Q2 2007).
Please note that the way headers are handled in Thunderbird and SeaMonkey is pretty problematic and adding such a feature requires thinking about the basic design in that area. I'm trying to find a reasonable approach with Thunderbird developers.
But... I've built MozillaThunderbird RPMs for 10.1 and 10.0 (both i686 and x86_64) that include a 3rd party patch to add a "reply to list" action.
More information here: http://open.nit.ca/wiki/index.php?page=ReplyToListThunderbirdExtension&7
I've uploaded new Thunderbird packages to my 10.1 experimental repository: ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/mozilla/experimental/10.1 Thanks to Pascal for providing the preformatted patch ;-) You can use the extension with those packages but you have another option with them: If you toggle the preference mailnews.clobber_list_reply to "true", Thunderbird should answer to the mailinglist only if you hit "Reply All". That's also no perfect solution but maybe some people find it useful. And if not just let it set to "false".
For those who are interested and/or would like to help, please install that package and test it. I made some basic tests with it on 10.1/x86_64 and 10.0/i686 and it works for me.
If you find any problem with the new builds, please tell me. Wolfgang -- SUSE LINUX GmbH -o) Tel: +49-(0)911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstr. 5 /\\ Fax: +49-(0)911-740 53 679 90409 Nuernberg, Germany _\_v
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 09:53:04AM +0200, jdd wrote:
Eberhard Moenkeberg a écrit :
If not, the lists will run into the desert because too much answers go wrong, or they will run into starvation because people start unsubscribing because they feel penetrated by double answers (list and private).
wether or not you like the new setup you may be aware that it's the very same setup of the suse-e mailing lits, one of the heaviest traffic suse one, so no, people wont go away (not for this reason, at least)
The people who are affected are not those users, it is the users here that are affected and even if people don't go away, many postings will go into oblivion. I know I have alread send several mails to individuals instead of to the mailinglist. Fact is that without any cosultation, a very importad part of the mailinglist has changed. -- houghi Please to not toppost http://houghi.org
You tried, and you failed, so the lesson is, never try. - Homer J. Simpson.
houghi a écrit :
oblivion. I know I have alread send several mails to individuals instead of to the mailinglist.
I did also. this is not really harmfull. But on the opensuse list I also at least once send a private message that went to the list because I only hit "reply", and this could be _really_ harmfull (it was not too much in the example, thanks god). jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://dodin.org/galerie_photo_web/expo/index.html http://lucien.dodin.net http://fr.susewiki.org/index.php?title=Gérer_ses_photos
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 06:16:27PM +0200, jdd wrote:
houghi a écrit :
oblivion. I know I have alread send several mails to individuals instead of to the mailinglist.
I did also. this is not really harmfull.
Yes, it is. If you are commenting on a group discussion and the group does not see your reply, then people will not know what you wanted to say. This will mean that some questions are never asked and therefore never answerd. It also means that some ideas are never given and seen. Also it won't be searchable in a later event, resulting in questions asked more then once. -- houghi Please to not toppost http://houghi.org
You tried, and you failed, so the lesson is, never try. - Homer J. Simpson.
houghi a écrit :
Yes, it is. If you are commenting on a group discussion and the group does not see your reply, then people will not know what you wanted to say.
I'm humble enough to think is somebody miss one of my post, the world wont stop spinning... jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://dodin.org/galerie_photo_web/expo/index.html http://lucien.dodin.net http://fr.susewiki.org/index.php?title=Gérer_ses_photos
participants (18)
-
Andreas Hanke -
Andreas Vetter -
Christian Boltz -
Dominique Leuenberger -
Eberhard Moenkeberg -
Felix Miata -
Henne Vogelsang -
Henne Vogelsang -
houghi -
jdd -
Pascal Bleser -
Patrick Shanahan -
Rajko M -
Richard Meek -
Tom Eastep -
Volker Kuhlmann -
William Gallafent -
Wolfgang Rosenauer