* Carlos E. R. [02-28-05 19:09]:

The Monday 2005-02-28 at 15:04 -0800, James D. Parra wrote:

...

I concur. Editing the "Reply To" address is a pain. It would be better if the "Reply To" went to the list. If I want to send to the originator, I'll modify the reply. There is no "Reply-To" header in mail coming from the list.

By the way, you email program does not respect mail threading.

That is correct. His mailer does not respect/use the "In-Reply-To:" and "References:" headers. IOWs, it *is* broken and might as well be LookOut. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery

I cannot see what the reasoning is behind the list 'Reply To' actions, but most definitely think it must be changed.

I agree. I stopped using Thunderbird because it was such a pain to change every response and often I would forget. It's not an issue with kmail but we need to be considerate of all users. The post comes from the list. "Reply To" should go back to the list. Jeff

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 15:47, Bruce Marshall wrote:

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 03:21 pm, Jeffrey Laramie wrote:

...

...

I cannot see what the reasoning is behind the list 'Reply To' actions, but most definitely think it must be changed.

I agree. I stopped using Thunderbird because it was such a pain to change every response and often I would forget. It's not an issue with kmail but we need to be considerate of all users. The post comes from the list. "Reply To" should go back to the list.

Usually in every discussion of this subject, someone comes up with the following link:

http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

I don't necessarily agree with it all.... but there is it for everyone to read.

I hadn't seen this and after reading it I don't agree with it. A few rebuttal points: 1. It doesn't break anything as he feels. In fact it fixes the post by setting "Reply To" to the actual sender, not the person whose mail is being forwarded to you. Think of what would happen if every forward pointed the "Reply To" back to the person who originated the mail instead of the person forwarding it! Same thing here. The list is forwarding someone else's mail to us at our request. The expectation is that reply goes to the sender, not the originator. 2. By showing the original author in the "From" field the identity is preserved and a direct reply is still an option. 3. It's not our job to discourage people from using the mailer of their choice even if it is sub-par. 4. The author claims it causes more work when in fact it is the same effort or easier. 5. If you're mixing personal posts with a list thread then you deserve to have your personal message sent to the world. In reality that happens extremely rarely and if the message was really juicy the spam filter would probably stop it anyway :-) 6. "Reply To" pointing to the list is the norm on the handful of lists I'm on and every one I've ever been on. I've never heard a criticism of this configuration and there is rarely any complaining about responding directly, as opposed to this list where it is a daily occurrance. It's good to hear other opinions. I think this discussion is long overdue. Jeff

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 05:17 pm, Kevanf1 wrote:

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:47:36 -0500, Jeffrey Laramie

wrote:

...

6. "Reply To" pointing to the list is the norm on the handful of lists I'm on and every one I've ever been on. I've never heard a criticism of this configuration and there is rarely any complaining about responding directly, as opposed to this list where it is a daily occurrance.

It's good to hear other opinions. I think this discussion is long overdue.

Jeff

For those of you using procmail, the following rule will set the reply-to back to the list: :0f * ^X-Mailinglist: suse-linux-e | formail -bfi "Reply-To: SLE " (so I don't have a problem with how they run this list)

Kastus wrote:

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:17:40PM +0000, Kevanf1 wrote:

...

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:47:36 -0500, Jeffrey Laramie wrote:

This saves your mailbox and mailboxes of other subscribers from automatic out-of-office replies. If you are not using autoreply, it does not mean that some other clever subscriber to the list is not using it either.

It doesn't always work. I've often seen out of office reples on this list.

* Kastus [03-02-05 17:31]:

This saves your mailbox and mailboxes of other subscribers from automatic out-of-office replies. If you are not using autoreply, it does not mean that some other clever subscriber to the list is not using it either.

But these same 'out-of-office' replies cause a loop with the Reply-To: header and can flood a list. I believe that this is the main reason for their *non*-use on this list (and others). At any rate, it is *mandated* by the list providers and has been explained at length many times over in *adamant* terms as non-negotiable. In other words: Live with it! -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery

On Thursday 03 March 2005 09:34, Kevanf1 wrote: <snip>

In which case we don't have a democratic list? It is my belief that if a problem is identified in a mailing list then it should be discussed. The reason for this thread. I further believe that if enough members - the majority who are willing to stand up and actually say something (useful) - wish a change to be made then that change should be seriously investigated and perhaps put to a vote. Nothing should ever be set absolutely in stone things do evolve after all.

-- Take care. Kevan Farmer

34 Hill Street Cheslyn Hay Staffordshire WS6 7HR

I am of the same opinion as you Kevan. I hate these "Out of the office right now" crap and the "sorry I can't help" with nothing else in the text. If we all did this "out of the office" kind of thing this list would be flooded as would many others. -- Clive. Fighting for darker skies. From 52:26:31N 01:27:48W

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 06:42:14 -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Kevanf1 [03-03-05 04:36]:

...

In which case we don't have a democratic list?

That *is* correct. The list is a service provided by SuSE for the discussion about SuSE Linux in English and subject to their whim.

...

It is my belief that if a problem is identified in a mailing list then it should be discussed. The reason for this thread.

Did you read the "WELCOME to suse-linux-e@suse.com" mail you received when you subscribed?

No. I don't really expect too many people do so. This would be a bit like Microsoft seriously expecting people to read the EULA.

<quote> Q7. Why do my replies go to the original poster and not the list? A7. There is a more complete answer in FAQ, but the short answer is that it's better this way. Trust us on this one, please. </quote>

and from the suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

<quote> Q2. Why do my replies go to the original poster and not the list? A2. We do not "munge" the mail headers by inserting a "Reply-To: suse-linux-e@suse.com" 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.

Also, please don't complain about this on the list, it has been discussed many, many, many times in the past already.

For background information see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

New! Even Sourceforge has turned to the dark side: http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=6693&group_id=1 </quote>

...

I further believe that if enough members - the majority who are willing to stand up and actually say something (useful) - wish a change to be made then that change should be seriously investigated and perhaps put to a vote. Nothing should ever be set absolutely in stone things do evolve after all.

Again, is not negotiable. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Hmmm, so this list will be how we want it not how the community of users want it? Surely, if as you say the subject crops up so many times it should be properly voted on. I shall not bring it up again except to reply to this thread but I bet somebody will do so. More evidence, obviously, that not many people read the introduction to the list. An introduction should be just that. A short sweet please don't flame, please don't spam introduction. Not a great list of taboo subjects. They are boring however well intentioned and they do get ignored. Sorry, that's how things are. -- Take care. Kevan Farmer 34 Hill Street Cheslyn Hay Staffordshire WS6 7HR

On Thursday 03 March 2005 07:22 am, Kevanf1 wrote:

Hmmm, so this list will be how we want it not how the community of users want it?

Surely, if as you say the subject crops up so many times it should be properly voted on.  I shall not bring it up again except to reply to this thread but I bet somebody will do so.  More evidence, obviously, that not many people read the introduction to the list.  An introduction should be just that.  A short sweet please don't flame, please don't spam introduction.  Not a great list of taboo subjects. They are boring however well intentioned and they do get ignored. Sorry, that's how things are.

This list is run by SuSE. They pay for it, they maintain it, they run it the way they want to. It is not subject to a vote. If you don't like it, start your own mailing list. My $.02

--- Bruce Marshall wrote:

This list is run by SuSE. They pay for it, they maintain it, they run it the way they want to. It is not subject to a vote. If you don't like it, start your own mailing list.

Have you considered applying for a job with Novell's public relations department? :-) __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/

On Thursday 03 March 2005 06:42, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Kevanf1 [03-03-05 04:36]:

...

In which case we don't have a democratic list?

That *is* correct. The list is a service provided by SuSE for the discussion about SuSE Linux in English

I think we all agree here.

and subject to their whim.

I certainly hope this is not true. Any company which set rules for their *customers* on a whim will not last. While they are the list administrators the list is provided for our benefit. This is our list. We support the product, we contribute code, and we pay the salaries of the management and some of the coders with our purchases and subscriptions. We have every right to let them know when we are happy/unhappy with one of their policies.

...

It is my belief that if a problem is identified in a mailing list then it should be discussed. The reason for this thread.

Did you read the "WELCOME to suse-linux-e@suse.com" mail you received when you subscribed?

<quote> Q7. Why do my replies go to the original poster and not the list? A7. There is a more complete answer in FAQ, but the short answer is that it's better this way. Trust us on this one, please. </quote>

It been awhile since I got the "Welcome" message and I don't remember seeing this. In any case, I find this patronizing.

and from the suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

<quote> Q2. Why do my replies go to the original poster and not the list? A2. We do not "munge" the mail headers by inserting a "Reply-To: suse-linux-e@suse.com" 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.

As previously discussed, many popular mail clients don't have this feature. Their way is in fact more difficult and inconvenient for many users and this reasoning is no longer valid. Standards evolve and if "munging" has become the standard, which it apparently has, then it's time this list started following it.

Also, please don't complain about this on the list, it has been discussed many, many, many times in the past already.

Did it ever occur to them that if they were getting lots of complaints that there might be a problem? Perhaps they should tell us *who* we should complain to. Someone with the authority to make a decision on this and not the/dev/null of the postmaster.

For background information see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

New! Even Sourceforge has turned to the dark side: http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=6693&group_id=1 </quote>

This is actually amusing in a sad way. Even the administrator admits this configuration is the "dark side". I think the list admin would be wise to take a survey of members (read *customers*) and see which way suits our needs best. If that means it stays the way it is, so be it.

...

I further believe that if enough members - the majority who are willing to stand up and actually say something (useful) - wish a change to be made then that change should be seriously investigated and perhaps put to a vote. Nothing should ever be set absolutely in stone things do evolve after all.

Again, is not negotiable.

Ah, but this is a business, and in business, Patrick, everything is negotiable. Jeff

On Wednesday March 2 2005 8:56 pm, jfweber@bellsouth.net wrote:

Now, can this thread finally DIE !!!

-- j I'm putting on the B-mer Brothers Would you mind putting on this grass skirt? NO! I want to hear more of your wisdom:-) Rich -- Rich Matson Reno, Nv. USA

On Thursday 03 March 2005 07:50, Jeffrey Laramie wrote:

On Thursday 03 March 2005 06:42, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

* Kevanf1 [03-03-05 04:36]:

...

In which case we don't have a democratic list?

That *is* correct. The list is a service provided by SuSE for the discussion about SuSE Linux in English

I think we all agree here.

...

and subject to their whim.

I certainly hope this is not true. Any company which set rules for their *customers* on a whim will not last. While they are the list administrators the list is provided for our benefit. This is our list. We support the product, we contribute code, and we pay the salaries of the management and some of the coders with our purchases and subscriptions. We have every right to let them know when we are happy/unhappy with one of their policies.

...

...

It is my belief that if a problem is identified in a mailing list then it should be discussed. The reason for this thread.

Did you read the "WELCOME to suse-linux-e@suse.com" mail you received when you subscribed?

<quote> Q7. Why do my replies go to the original poster and not the list? A7. There is a more complete answer in FAQ, but the short answer is that it's better this way. Trust us on this one, please. </quote>

It been awhile since I got the "Welcome" message and I don't remember seeing this. In any case, I find this patronizing.

...

and from the suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

<quote> Q2. Why do my replies go to the original poster and not the list? A2. We do not "munge" the mail headers by inserting a "Reply-To: suse-linux-e@suse.com" 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.

As previously discussed, many popular mail clients don't have this feature. Their way is in fact more difficult and inconvenient for many users and this reasoning is no longer valid. Standards evolve and if "munging" has become the standard, which it apparently has, then it's time this list started following it.

...

Also, please don't complain about this on the list, it has been discussed many, many, many times in the past already.

Did it ever occur to them that if they were getting lots of complaints that there might be a problem? Perhaps they should tell us *who* we should complain to. Someone with the authority to make a decision on this and not the/dev/null of the postmaster.

...

For background information see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

New! Even Sourceforge has turned to the dark side:

http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=6693&group_id=1 </quote>

This is actually amusing in a sad way. Even the administrator admits this configuration is the "dark side". I think the list admin would be wise to take a survey of members (read *customers*) and see which way suits our needs best. If that means it stays the way it is, so be it.

...

...

I further believe that if enough members - the majority who are willing to stand up and actually say something (useful) - wish a change to be made then that change should be seriously investigated and perhaps put to a vote. Nothing should ever be set absolutely in stone things do evolve after all.

Again, is not negotiable.

Ah, but this is a business, and in business, Patrick, everything is negotiable.

Jeff

<PLONK> Idiot.

Jeffrey Laramie [3 Mar 2005 08:50 -0500]:

Any company which set rules for their *customers* on a whim will not last.

While they are the list administrators the list is provided for our benefit. This is our list.

And that's where you gravely err. This still is SUSE's list, like it or not. Should SUSE/Novell decide to discontinue this list, it would be gone in the wink of an eye.

We support the product, we contribute code, and we pay the salaries of the management and some of the coders with our purchases and subscriptions.

Stay on the floor, you pay part of it, not all.

We have every right to let them know when we are happy/unhappy with one of their policies.

Then this list is the wrong place. Nearly no one of the SUSE/Novell employees read this list.

It is my belief that if a problem is identified in a mailing list then it should be discussed.

You can discuss all you like, it'll probably never reach those that administrate this list.

As previously discussed, many popular mail clients don't have this feature.

Some MUA's (and those are quite popular in corporate environments)) don't support threading by using the In-Reply-To and References Header entries, should we therefore abandon it? Just because the programmers of a particular MUA seemingly don't have a clue as to what is needed for proper communication doesn't make that any kind of standard.

Even the administrator admits this configuration is the "dark side".

You didn't get the joke, do you? Do such statements need some kind of special tag so that you notice irony?

take a survey of members (read *customers*)

Not every member of this list is a customer, at least not a paying customer, as there are a number of people that use the FTP version.

Ah, but this is a business, and in business, Patrick, everything is negotiable.

This list isn't business! This list is a service for users of SUSE Linux. And as far as technical things like munging Reply-To are concerned there is no negotiation, it's that simple. And BTW, even in business there are things that aren't negotiable. Philipp

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:51:01 +0000, Fergus Wilde wrote:

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:47, Jeffrey Laramie wrote:

...

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 15:47, Bruce Marshall wrote:

...

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 03:21 pm, Jeffrey Laramie wrote:

...

...

I cannot see what the reasoning is behind the list 'Reply To' actions, but most definitely think it must be changed.

[snip more stuff about what replies to whom]

...

It's good to hear other opinions. I think this discussion is long overdue.

Not sure I can see this, haven't we had this same discussion over and over and over again for the last five years?

...

Jeff

-- Fergus Wilde Chetham's Library Long Millgate Manchester M3 1SB

Tel: +44 161 834 7961 Fax: +44 161 839 5797

http://www.chethams.org.uk

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Possibly Fergus. However I am new to the list and I didn't start the thread purely to change anything. I actually posted a new message because I erroneously thought it was a problem with GMail :-( It has evolved into what it is now. -- Take care. Kevan Farmer 34 Hill Street Cheslyn Hay Staffordshire WS6 7HR

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 08:01, Jeffrey Laramie wrote:

I haven't been on the list 5 years but I've been here awhile. I've heard complaints about the current setup being annoying but I haven't seen any substantial discussion as to *why* this list handles "Reply To" this way. Maybe I missed it.

Jeff

Well, unless you have been away from the list the last three days it has been discussed this week with links to pages showing why not. When in Rome do as the Romans do. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 * Only reply to the list please* "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge

Hi Jeffrey, On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:46:42 -0500 UTC (3/3/2005, 8:46 AM -0600 UTC my time), Jeffrey Laramie wrote: J> I was of course referring to discussions prior to this one. I've seen the link J> and the quotes that Patrick posted, but I haven't heard anyone defend the J> contention that it is bad to munge headers. why should anyone defend the above. The point is, your ranting will not change anything, not now, not ever. J> It's claimed that munging makes it more difficult for subscribers. How? what difference does it make as to the determinants of this list? J> Using what mailers? Is munging prohibited by RFC? Not that I know of. why do you continue your rant? J> I've posted a detailed rebuttal to the points made in the link and nobody J> has disputed my points. So what. Do you think it is going to change all of the Suse lists, and millions of email successfully passing through these lists on any given day. J> What I'm seeing so far is a list administrator who has made a decision J> based on a principle that "munging" is bad with little or no J> justification for that opinion. What I am seeing so far is someone on a rant. I suggest you really read the archives where this has been discussed ad nauseam over the years, many times. J> Let's hear a defense of this policy that doesn't include grade school J> arguments like "munging is bad" and "because that's the way we do it J> here". Why, do you have that much time to waste as to harp on such a mundane issue? Why do you think anyone has to defend "this policy?" This is the way it is, it will not change, nor will you change it for this list, or any EZMLM driven mail list. You have two choices, we all have choices, either change email clients or find another list to your liking. /dev/bitbucket. -- Gary

On Thursday 03 March 2005 10:32 am, Jeffrey Laramie wrote:

...

J> Let's hear a defense of this policy that doesn't include grade school J> arguments like "munging is bad" and "because that's the way we do it J> here".

Why, do you have that much time to waste as to harp on such a mundane issue? Why do you think anyone has to defend "this policy?" This is the way it is, it will not change, nor will you change it for this list, or any EZMLM driven mail list. You have two choices, we all have choices, either change email clients or find another list to your liking.

You're entitled to your opinions, but once again this is a "because that's the way it is" answer. You may find this thread annoying but so far the majority thinks this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Jeff

<PLONK>

Hi, On Thursday 03 March 2005 16:32, Jeffrey Laramie wrote:

...

J> Let's hear a defense of this policy that doesn't include grade school J> arguments like "munging is bad" and "because that's the way we do it J> here".

Why, do you have that much time to waste as to harp on such a mundane issue? Why do you think anyone has to defend "this policy?" This is the way it is, it will not change, nor will you change it for this list, or any EZMLM driven mail list. You have two choices, we all have choices, either change email clients or find another list to your liking.

You're entitled to your opinions, but once again this is a "because that's the way it is" answer. You may find this thread annoying but so far the majority thinks this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Yes - and if the policy were to be changed than the majority of comments would be from people that want it back to the way it is now. Want a bet? Well, we'll never find out because it won't be changed. So unfortunately I can't prove my point ;-) Anyway, there are reasons for both ways. And I won't even try and convince you or anybody else of the superiority of my reasons. But is obvious that there are people on both sides that are _convinced_ that "their way" is the right way. And guess what: this is also true for the peple that operate this list. Now if they are _convinced_ that the setup is right (and they are convinced of that - and it may as well be noted that they do know a damn lot more about the topic than most of us), does anybody seriously expect them to change the setup? So you may as well just accept the setup. You may also secretly hope for the day that another listadmin will be convinced of the reply-to-list policy. But until then there won't be a change. No reasoning on your side will change that. Greetings from Stuhr hartmut BTW: they are right ;-)

On Thursday 03 March 2005 9:32 am, Jeffrey Laramie wrote:

You're entitled to your opinions, but once again this is a "because that's the way it is" answer. You may find this thread annoying but so far the majority thinks this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Jeff

Speak for yourself only. I never gave you permission to speak for me about anything on this list. The only majority I see agreeing with your point of view are a very few of the hundreds or thousands of subscribers on this list. I'd say the majority here are silent about this topic neither agreeing nor disagreeing with it. The suse-ot list is for this type of discussion because this topic has devolved into a rant on SUSE's mail list policies and has nothing to do with using SUSE Linux. Start your own mailing list and run it your way if the way SUSE runs theirs is such a bother for you. FYI: Kmail makes your opinion about what a mailing list server should do with the Reply To:'s absolutely meaningless. Check it out. It puts you in control of how to deal with ANY mailing list. Stan

On Thursday March 3 2005 9:31 am, John B wrote:

On Thursday 03 March 2005 09:32, Jeffrey Laramie wrote:

No, the majority is used to this idiotic discussion being brought up at least once a year. We, the majority, are tired of it and having to explain/argue about it when it could be found in the archives and seen that it's a waste of our time.

John

I agree with John. Rich -- Rich Matson Reno, Nv. USA

...

...

Why, do you have that much time to waste as to harp on such a mundane issue? Why do you think anyone has to defend "this policy?" This is the way it is, it will not change, nor will you change it for this list, or any EZMLM driven mail list. You have two choices, we all have choices, either change email clients or find another list to your liking.

You're entitled to your opinions, but once again this is a "because that's the way it is" answer. You may find this thread annoying but so far the majority thinks this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Speak for yourself I certainly do not belong to "majority", and I wonder what gives you the right to think you speak for any of us (tinu). Let's not get into a flame war. The issue has been discussed on this list for a long time, and on other listservs as long as I can remember. The way

On Thursday 03 March 2005 3:41 pm, Theo v. Werkhoven wrote: the current list is set up is the default on most listserv software, and this is the way this list has been operated for quite a while. If the list admin wants to elicit a vote, maybe we can resolve the controversy until someone brigs it up again next year. -- Jerry Feldman Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9

Hi Martin, On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 22:48:44 +0100 UTC (3/3/2005, 3:48 PM -0600 UTC my time), Martin Cleaver wrote: M> Much of my messages to the Suse list have come back because I sent them M> from the wrong address... Most mailing lists can allow alternate sending M> addresses ( I don't want an extra subscription) and is it possible to do M> this with the Suse list too? Suse uses EZMLM for its mailing lists... it is considered an advanced type of list, utilizing VERP, etc. In order to answer your question, you have to understand somewhat email in general. In that vein, generally an email (for list purposes) is composed really of two parts, the envelope sender and the From: sender. Most email clients, when you send a message From: such and such.. automatically manufacturers the envelope sender as being from the same address as the From: address. When you subscribe to any EZMLM list, what happens is that the list program utilizes the envelope sender part for the subscription, not the From: header. So, typically they will be the same address. They can, however, be different if you wish, so you can put in an envelope from address (which is only seen by EZMLM, and is secret) which is different from your From: address (which is seen by the world). An example would be the above with my email address... I subscribed under a real email address from one of my domains, which is my secret envelope sender address, while what you see is a fake From: address. This has the added benefit of allowing me never receive any spam that is harvested from this list, or any EZMLM list because what is shown publicly is not the subscribed valid address. I have used three different From: addresses today on this list. It also has the obvious benefit of letting you use any From: address you can think of. You can use any From: address you wish, as long as you chose an email client that supports separating the envelope sender from address (sometimes called Return-Path field), from the From: address. Two MUAs that come to mind which allow this are Mutt in the unices, and The Bat in Windows. I am sure there are others. HTH. -- Gary

Hi Philipp, On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:53:40 +0100 UTC (3/4/2005, 2:53 PM -0600 UTC my time), Philipp Thomas wrote:

...

You can use any From: address you wish, as long as you chose an email client that supports separating the envelope sender from address

P> And as long as you don't have an ISP whose mail server stupidly insists P> on From: having to be a valid e-mail address. very good point. In the states here, some ISPs, including one large one, are now going to SMTP auth for everything, so this would help <g> -- Gary

Hi Philipp, On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 22:24:35 +0100 UTC (3/4/2005, 3:24 PM -0600 UTC my time), Philipp Thomas wrote:

...

In the states here, some ISPs, including one large one, are now going to SMTP auth for everything, so this would help

P> Using that wouldn't automatically change the server configuration but P> chances are high that using SMTP auth would eliminate that. Very much agreed. P> Which reminds me of a quote from a comedian twenty years ago: P> "What good is artificial intelligence if the natural one is lacking" that cracked me up... Makes a good tag line. -- Gary "deja moo," the feeling that you've heard this bull before.

"Carlos E. R." [5 Mar 2005 03:42:05]:

Why would that be stupid? I would like my provider rejecting them...

What for? I've already authenticated myself before sending the mail, so it's irrelevant what I write in the header from. It's like having the post office check the address in your letter head. It's the envelope 'From' (note the missing ':') that is interesting here and which must be correct. Philipp

Well, I am not an expert on list servers, but it doesn't seem like it would be rocket science to add a "user-pref" field to the subscriber database, and allow everyone their own flavor of munging. Of course, only a "real" software company would be able to implement such a complex strategy. -- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

will you be back to ask for assistance? I think probably, but will it be there?

Oh dear, the undisputed God of the Last Linux Forum on earth has threatened to ignore me. -- __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/

jfweber@bellsouth.net [Thu, 3 Mar 2005 12:24:34 -0500]:

It probably would have taken but a few of your so effective keystrokes to solve all the problems we've been having today

You mean that little trick that banned subjects from the list? Yes that would indeed be needed more often.

Damn him for running off

If you'd know the reasons you wouldn't blame him.

If any of you European guys still see him,

Chris was and still is an American and worked at SUSEs former Oakland office. So Europeans don't really have a better chance of seeing him.

buy him a beer for me,

I will if I remember when I visit the states probably in the fall.

Time's like today he is sorely missed.

Yes, but also for other reasons. Philipp

On Friday 04 March 2005 14:41, Danny Sauer wrote:

I'm part of the *actual* majority who either 1) thinks the policy is good or

Absolutely agree. Well, I've actually no idea whether it's a majority or not, but I'm part of that group, anyway. KMail: R (= reply) -> list Shift-A (= author) -> originator A (= all) -> list, cc originator L (= list) -> list I'm sure it's equally easy to do these four things, which are more or less the set of things you might want to do, in any other decent client (e.g. PINE). We thus, with the current settings, have the advantages of very little spam / autoresponder loops etc., and can flexibly reply to the list, to the originator, or to both, using the default mail client on the platform to which the list is dedicated, or any other list-aware client. So, as you say, it's not worth discussing any further. I count myself among the people who didn't bother to reply because there's nothing worth discussing :) D'oh. I just replied. Oh well. -- Bill

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 08:41:23 -0600, Danny Sauer wrote:

On Thursday 03 March 2005 09:32 am, Jeffrey Laramie wrote: ...

...

...

Why, do you have that much time to waste as to harp on such a mundane issue? Why do you think anyone has to defend "this policy?" This is the way it is, it will not change, nor will you change it for this list, or any EZMLM driven mail list. You have two choices, we all have choices, either change email clients or find another list to your liking.

You're entitled to your opinions, but once again this is a "because that's the way it is" answer. You may find this thread annoying but so far the majority thinks this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

I'm part of the *actual* majority who either 1) thinks the policy is good or 2) lives with it. We haven't been posting, because this is redundant, off-topic, and ineffectual.

Changing headers in messages in order to compensate for stupid mail clients is bad. Anyone whose mail client can't properly handle a mailing list is broken. Period. Designing around broken clients is a poor decision - people with broken clients should get a good client, or learn to live with things being broken. They should *not* expect someone else to mangle posts, especially by overriding a perfectly valid reply-to header (yes, some people actually use that header for valid purposes).

The majority is still sitting out, waiting for this stupid thread and the few users of incompetent mail programs to go away.

--Danny

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

I was the original poster to this thread. I am sorry it has degenerated into 'nearly but not quite' a flame war. That was never my intention. My original post did indeed point out the fact I thought that there was a problem with Gmail. I did not in the first instance question the way the list handled the reply options. Now I did indeed start to question this later in the history of the thread. I'm not trying to get out of this but it does now appear that I was correct in my assumption that it is GMail that is at fault. I do subscribe to another mailing list with my POP mail account using Kmail and I agree that it is excellent in its handling of the list. I don't want to swap my list address over to a POP account as I use the Gmail one because of the massive free storage it offers. So I will put up with it. -- Take care. Kevan Farmer 34 Hill Street Cheslyn Hay Staffordshire WS6 7HR

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:36:44 -0500, Bruce Marshall wrote:

On Friday 04 March 2005 10:25 am, Kevanf1 wrote:

...

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 08:41:23 -0600, Danny Sauer

wrote:

...

On Thursday 03 March 2005 09:32 am, Jeffrey Laramie wrote: ...

...

...

Why, do you have that much time to waste as to harp on such a mundane issue? Why do you think anyone has to defend "this policy?" This is the way it is, it will not change, nor will you change it for this list, or any EZMLM driven mail list. You have two choices, we all have choices, either change email clients or find another list to your liking.

You're entitled to your opinions, but once again this is a "because that's the way it is" answer. You may find this thread annoying but so far the majority thinks this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

I'm part of the *actual* majority who either 1) thinks the policy is good or 2) lives with it. We haven't been posting, because this is redundant, off-topic, and ineffectual.

Changing headers in messages in order to compensate for stupid mail clients is bad. Anyone whose mail client can't properly handle a mailing list is broken. Period. Designing around broken clients is a poor decision - people with broken clients should get a good client, or learn to live with things being broken. They should *not* expect someone else to mangle posts, especially by overriding a perfectly valid reply-to header (yes, some people actually use that header for valid purposes).

The majority is still sitting out, waiting for this stupid thread and the few users of incompetent mail programs to go away.

--Danny

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

I was the original poster to this thread. I am sorry it has degenerated into 'nearly but not quite' a flame war. That was never my intention. My original post did indeed point out the fact I thought that there was a problem with Gmail. I did not in the first instance question the way the list handled the reply options. Now I did indeed start to question this later in the history of the thread. I'm not trying to get out of this but it does now appear that I was correct in my assumption that it is GMail that is at fault. I do subscribe to another mailing list with my POP mail account using Kmail and I agree that it is excellent in its handling of the list. I don't want to swap my list address over to a POP account as I use the Gmail one because of the massive free storage it offers. So I will put up with it.

You can use POP with gmail.....

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Yes, I know. The trouble is it means I have to download everything to my PC. I prefer to keep it online as I use more than one PC. Two have Linux on them the other with Window$ -- Take care. Kevan Farmer 34 Hill Street Cheslyn Hay Staffordshire WS6 7HR

On Friday 04 March 2005 10:50 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:

Kevan,

On Friday 04 March 2005 07:44, Kevanf1 wrote:

...

...

...

You can use POP with gmail.....

Yes, I know. The trouble is it means I have to download everything to my PC. I prefer to keep it online as I use more than one PC. Two have Linux on them the other with Window$

-- Take care. Kevan Farmer

Every POP client I've ever used--and I've used quite a few--has a "leave mail on server" option.

I believe you can also tell gmail to archive the mail even though you are using POP to retrieve it.

Fergus Wilde wrote:

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:47, Jeffrey Laramie wrote:

[snip more stuff about what replies to whom]

...

It's good to hear other opinions. I think this discussion is long overdue.

Not sure I can see this, haven't we had this same discussion over and over and over again for the last five years?

Maybe there's a reason, in that many people dislike the way things are. Based on what I've seen, there are far more opposed to the current setup, than in favour. Maybe that should be a hint, to whoever's running this list. Or perhaps their posistion is "My way is the right way and to hell with what others want".

On Thursday 03 March 2005 11:44 am, Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:

Maybe there are enough users on this list, like myself, that have seen this discussed so many times that we see no need to extend these "discussions".  I have seen some autoreply loops enough to agree whole heartedly with the present policy.  With such a high volume list, a looping autoreplying list of 3000-5000 members would definitely cause me to really wonder if the list were worth the trouble.  I have appreciated the help this list is able to be to all users of SuSE Linux, and am glad that they who really know ALL the issues are making these policy decisions. I fully concur. -- Jerry Feldman Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9