Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3337 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] Why no Reply-to?
  • From: ken <gebser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:17:28 -0400
  • Message-id: <44312E78.80308@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * ken <gebser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [04-03-06 08:22]:
>>It might be another good idea to notify people who may want to
>>subscribe to this list that probably they'll need to change email
>>clients in order to accommodate how this list is set up.
>
> This is a 'chicken little - the sky is falling' statement. It merely
> requires that the user understand the operation of his chosen email
> client and then to use it properly.
>
>>This information would give them warning that they may have to download
>>and probably will have to configure an email client especially for this
>>list. We could also point them to this thread to show them how all
>>this makes sense.
>
> Completely false.
>
>
>>>No, not 'Reply-To', but a List-Reply function that recognizes a
>>>mailing list and replies to the 'List'.
>>And we should point them to the place in the the relevant RFCs where it
>>explains this.
>
> This is not an RFC, but a *feature* offered by particular email
> clients. Other email clients have features not offered by these
> particular clients.

Heck, let's call it a "convenience".


>
>>If someone is using Windows and is considering using suse and wants to
>>use this list to find out about suse, which email client should we tell
>>them to use... one that runs on Windows?
>
> Any that they prefer, they need to understand how to reply to the list
> rather than the poster.

IOW, not reply to Reply-to.


>>Apparently Thunderbird needs to be fixed to work "suitably" on this
>>list. How is this done? Are changes to the source code required?
>
> It will never be 'suitable' until *you* understand it's operation.

That's a little simplistic. You need to understand how the mail and
list servers work also.


>
> ...
>>This is correct-- I mean, that T-bird isn't
>>suse-linux-e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> It certainly is, but is feature lacking and it's operator does not want
> to use it properly or does not understand or refuses to apply it's
> proper usage.

Perhaps by "proper" you mean "idiosyncratic" or "in the context of this
list", certainly not "universally accepted".

I would agree with another poster on this topic: we should have another
list to discuss how to use this list. If we do that, for the sake of
fairness and compliance with standards, maybe it could be set up the
other way, so that a reply goes to whatever "Reply-to" says.


--
"This world ain't big enough for the both of us,"
said the big noema to the little noema.


< Previous Next >