[OT] Proposed SuSE List Etiquette
After following a lively etiquette thread yesterday, I thought I would put together a number of the comments in case the list feels like having a written set of guidelines. The following is a draft for comment. It needs a volunteer to collate comments and edit it appropriately. If the list can agree on a final revision, maybe the list owner can post it for new list members to read before joining. Mike - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mailing List Etiquette Mailing lists which support free open-source software are communities of real people who help you for free. Mostly these helpers are existing users of the software who feel that they are contributing -- in return for the benefit they get from free open source software. No-one forces anyone to help you on a mailing list. First Requirement Gain attention. To obtain help, you first have to present an interesting problem. What makes an interesting problem? 1. The problem hasn't been seen before. NB: this means you have searched and cannot find the answer in the FAQs or list archives. NBB: if you see "... google is your friend :) ..." it is a gentle way of saying you haven't really tried to find the answer 2. It is easy to follow your description of the problem. If English is not your primary language, the list will definitely make allowances but native English speakers must always use excellent grammar and spelling. 3. You provide enough data, error messages and/or other background info to fill in the gaps and permit an appraisal in a single span of attention 4. The subject line does not contain the word "help" or "HELP" 5. The subject line succinctly summarises your message Second Requirement Be efficient. Use the technology sparingly. All lists have their quirks (see Third Requirement below) which usually stem from the early days when internet bandwidth was precious and most users were roughly equivalent in experience. The current situation is almost reversed. What is perhaps most precious nowadays is the time of the few valuable people who inhabit lists and help many others. The following aspects always help them to help you ... 1. Always send plain text emails. Mailing lists for free open source software are usually anti-fancy-email. Microsoft email users in particular don't usually get their questions looked at because most helpers on most mailing lists set up their filters to automatically trash mail containing HTML. If you don't understand this, just make sure Outlook, Outlook Express, Eudora, Thunderbird, Groupwise or whatever other email client you habitually use is set for plain text. 2. Set out your message with short paragraphs. 3. Never ever use upper case unless you want to be heard SHOUTING. Obviously, when copying and pasting error messages and the like, this does not apply. 4. Emphasise your point(s) sparingly. Better to use fewer words so those you do use are naturally more emphatic. A pair of *asterisks* is read as bold by experienced people even if their mail client doesn't actually make the text bold. Likewise a pair of _underscores_ works too. Use white space and short paragraphs primarily and only resort to bold, underline and exclamation points if really necessary. They usually detract from your message - which is inefficient. 5. Never post messages with attachments. If you have something to attach, resist the temptation. Just mention that it is available off-list if anyone contacts you directly. Third Requirement Don't offend. Put on your guru hat. Imagine that the mailbox has been filling up while you have been away on assignment or out to lunch. There are 500 messages filtered into your various list-subscription mail folders. Fortunately, you are a guru and you are not waiting on an answer to a question of your own. OK - do you read them all? No way. You trash the lot and relax with empty folders. Now the pressure is off and and you can trash incoming list messages one at a time according to your interest in the subject line. Life is good. Have you breached list etiquette? No way. No-one is paying you to plough through tons of poorly written, mis-spelled, obscure nonsense. In fact, if anyone is paying you it will be to attend to their particular problems and not to newbies and ravers who inhabit mailing lists. Put on your newbie hat. If you want helpers to respond to your requests for assistance you have to make it easy for them. Let's say you have presented an interesting problem as per the First Requirement above. You have been careful to use the tools appropriately as per the Second Requirement. Finally, you need to adhere to the finer points of list etiquette. Be aware that these finer points vary somewhat between lists so you need to watch what happens and look for the clues ... 1. Thread hijacking is almost universally hated. If you pick a random message, click [Reply] to get a new message addressed to the list then overtype the subject with a new line and delete the content to start a "new" thread you will be a thread hijacker. This awful practice spoils list organisation and also makes it difficult to follow threads in the archives. Such hijacking evil will be forever revealed by Google. Good mail clients are able to keep threads of postings together so they can be read in context. Experienced users exploit this functionality because it makes for efficient use of their time. If you hijack a thread there will be two immediately negative results ... * your message will appear in the middle of another discussion and will not therefore gain the attention of that portion of list members who are not following that particular thread * your message will be off-topic in that thread and will therefore annoy that portion of list members who are following that particular thread 2. Thread hijacking is half-way reasonable if you deliberately want to hijack it. This is not done frequently. In such a case you would start a new subject line but retain the original in brackets like this "New topic [was: Old Topic]". Always consider starting a new thread before deliberately hijacking one. 3. Top posting is not popular. Top posting is when a reply to a message appears ahead of the original text. Consider the guru just back from holidays who (having unsubscribed before heading to the slopes) re-subscribes. At first glance, the guru sees a comment totally out of context. In order to assist the original poster, the guru has to read back and forth to pick up the context. It is too hard. Much easier to trash the message and see if the next message is more interesting. Don't top-post. If you are replying to a message do so within the flow of the accumulated discussion. Keep your comments and contributions interspersed in context so the message remains both coherent and interesting. Perhaps the only time top posting is reasonable is after a problem is solved and you make a final post to thank those who helped. At that point you are saying something at the top of the message which is actually in context. 4. Snip messages with oft-repeated parts to limit length. A message which has been batted back and forth can contain sections which are no longer interesting and no longer contribute to the context. However, it is impolite to silently chop stuff out. You should indicate with a comment (eg., <snip> ) that something has been snipped. People can go back in the thread to see if they need to refresh their memory. 5. When you reply with a comment inserted in context, add your moniker after your last comment. This means other readers don't have to look further down the message if they have been following the thread. Your name indicates you haven't added anything below. 6. Obviously, you should never flame anyone unless your email persona is totally anonymous and there is no chance of ever being identified. Not to mention ever needing the help of the person you flambéed. You wouldn't do that anyway because you are not an insecure personality who needs to bolster your self-esteem by attacking others. Like the real gurus, you trash rubbish. 7. Always unsubscribe from the list if you enable an auto-reply when you take a vacation. If you forget, others will remember you for a long time. 8. If you care to test tolerance you may ask a question unrelated to the list-purpose. Should you be so bold, correct etiquette is to precede your subject with an off-topic indicator. Busy list members frequently use the off-topic indicator to filter such messages straight to trash. Some lists use [OT], others prefer [Off Topic] at the beginning of the subject line. Some light traffic lists actually encourage such OT messages and levity on Fridays but frown on such things during the week. Watch and learn. 9. Avoid email disclaimers. It is a good idea to use one of the free email offerings such as yahoo, gmail etc and set it up for your list persona without a disclaimer. Disclaimers and/or lengthy signatures take up space and permanently inflate the archives. 10. Sometimes signatures carry mottoes or promote causes which are offensive to some. Best to avoid that. Archives let your young stupidities follow you into old age. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mike Dewhirst wrote:
After following a lively etiquette thread yesterday, I thought I would put together a number of the comments in case the list feels like having a written set of guidelines.
The following is a draft for comment. It needs a volunteer to collate comments and edit it appropriately. If the list can agree on a final revision, maybe the list owner can post it for new list members to read before joining.
What a fantastic essay... ;-) I vote for making yours the official long version... Put it on the wiki! Here is my suggestion for a short version. *K.I.S.S = Keep it seriously simple* 1. Keep it interesting [image/button] 2. Keep it short [image/button] 3. Keep it friendly [image/button] Every point should be followed by an image/button saying "Elaborate" or "More about this subject" If you didn't notice I have substituted your: "Gain attention" with "Keep it interesting" "Be efficient" with "Keep it short" and "Don't offend" with "Keep it friendly" The text you have written under each header is fine, for now. But it should be even more extensive so after reading it all, newcomers would have no excuse to be ignorant. -- Regards Kenneth Aar
On Friday 11 August 2006 09:55, Mike Dewhirst wrote:
1. Thread hijacking is almost universally hated. If you pick a random message, click [Reply] to get a new message addressed to the list then overtype the subject with a new line and delete the content to start a "new" thread you will be a thread hijacker. This awful practice spoils list organisation and also makes it difficult to follow threads in the archives. Such hijacking evil will be forever revealed by Google. Good mail clients are able to keep threads of postings together so they can be read in context. Experienced users exploit this functionality because it makes for efficient use of their time. If you hijack a thread there will be two immediately negative results ...
* your message will appear in the middle of another discussion and will not therefore gain the attention of that portion of list members who are not following that particular thread
* your message will be off-topic in that thread and will therefore annoy that portion of list members who are following that particular thread
2. Thread hijacking is half-way reasonable if you deliberately want to hijack it. This is not done frequently. In such a case you would start a new subject line but retain the original in brackets like this "New topic [was: Old Topic]". Always consider starting a new thread before deliberately hijacking one.
Errrr....I have a confession to make. I've often used this technique to get the email address of the list without ever intending to hijack a thread....I just assumed it would start an entirely new thread. I suspect a great many people would assume the same thing. Can you explain a little more about the mechanism of how this occurs? I'm guessing it's the threading software? Bob.
* Robert Smits <bob@rsmits.ca> [08-11-06 22:18]:
Errrr....I have a confession to make. I've often used this technique to get the email address of the list without ever intending to hijack a thread....I just assumed it would start an entirely new thread. I suspect a great many people would assume the same thing.
shame on you....
Can you explain a little more about the mechanism of how this occurs? I'm guessing it's the threading software?
no, it's not the threading software which would be your email client which displays the threads. Threads depending on the email client are based on three things: 1. the 'References:' header 2. the 'In-Reply-To:' header 3. the 'Subject:' header the first two utilize the 'Message-Id:' References: <44DCB68F.3070605@dewhirst.com.au> In-Reply-To: <44DCB68F.3070605@dewhirst.com.au> Message-Id: <200608111918.45280.bob@rsmits.ca> Subject: Re: [SLE] [OT] Proposed SuSE List Etiquette You may still utilize the technique presented previous, _if_ you delete the 'Refrences:' and 'In-Reply-To:' headers and alter the 'Subject:' header. Open a message that appears third or fourth in a thread and look at the headers. -- 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
* Robert Smits <bob@rsmits.ca> [08-11-06 22:18]:
Errrr....I have a confession to make. I've often used this technique to get the email address of the list without ever intending to hijack a thread....I just assumed it would start an entirely new thread. I suspect a great many people would assume the same thing.
Can you explain a little more about the mechanism of how this occurs? I'm guessing it's the threading software?
On Friday 11 August 2006 21:28, Patrick Shanahan wrote: no, it's not the threading software which would be your email client which displays the threads. Threads depending on the email client are based on three things: 1. the 'References:' header 2. the 'In-Reply-To:' header 3. the 'Subject:' header the first two utilize the 'Message-Id:' References: <44DCB68F.3070605@dewhirst.com.au> In-Reply-To: <44DCB68F.3070605@dewhirst.com.au> Message-Id: <200608111918.45280.bob@rsmits.ca> Subject: Re: [SLE] [OT] Proposed SuSE List Etiquette You may still utilize the technique presented previous, _if_ you delete the 'Refrences:' and 'In-Reply-To:' headers and alter the 'Subject:' header. Open a message that appears third or fourth in a thread and look at the headers. -- 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 ***************************************************************************** Set your mail client to display ALL headers, by default most mail clients hide this geeky info from the reader (in KMail set View > Headers > All). KMail uses "fancy" headers by default. An easy way to start a new message thread, without hijacking an existing thread, is to click the list address in the header; this opens a new blank message addressed to the list address.
On Friday 11 August 2006 18:18, Robert Smits wrote:
Errrr....I have a confession to make. I've often used this technique to get the email address of the list without ever intending to hijack a thread....I just assumed it would start an entirely new thread. I suspect a great many people would assume the same thing.
Can you explain a little more about the mechanism of how this occurs? I'm guessing it's the threading software?
Bob.
Now See Bob, you just hijacked another thread!!! ;-) Since you use Kmail you can get the address just by singe clicking the address in any post. If you have Veiw/Headers set to Fancy or Standard, you will see the header in every post. Just single click the one that says suse-linux-e@suse.com Also if you filter this list into a folder, you can click the folder and then click Folder/Mailing list management in the main menu to tell kmail that this folder contains a mailing list. You can set the list address in that same panel. From then on you just right click the folder and select new message to mailing list. (They keep moving this capability around in Kmail, but its still one of the best mailers for mailing lists)> -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Friday 11 August 2006 20:44, John Andersen wrote:
Now See Bob, you just hijacked another thread!!! ;-)
Since you use Kmail you can get the address just by singe clicking the address in any post. If you have Veiw/Headers set to Fancy or Standard, you will see the header in every post. Just single click the one that says suse-linux-e@suse.com
Also if you filter this list into a folder, you can click the folder and then click Folder/Mailing list management in the main menu to tell kmail that this folder contains a mailing list. You can set the list address in that same panel. From then on you just right click the folder and select new message to mailing list.
(They keep moving this capability around in Kmail, but its still one of the best mailers for mailing lists)>
Yes, it really is. It's been so long since I actually looked at all the headers, I'd completely forgotten about most of them. And that's a neat trick, being able to designate a folder as one containing a mailing list. I know it does it automatically a lot of the time when I create a filter, but not always. Thanks again. Bob.
On Saturday 12 August 2006 05:44, John Andersen wrote:
On Friday 11 August 2006 18:18, Robert Smits wrote:
Errrr....I have a confession to make. I've often used this technique to get the email address of the list without ever intending to hijack a thread....I just assumed it would start an entirely new thread. I suspect a great many people would assume the same thing.
Can you explain a little more about the mechanism of how this occurs? I'm guessing it's the threading software?
Bob.
Now See Bob, you just hijacked another thread!!! ;-)
Not. :P ...
then click Folder/Mailing list management in the main menu to tell kmail that this folder contains a mailing list. You can set the list address in that same panel. From then on you just right click the folder and select new message to mailing list.
(They keep moving this capability around in Kmail, but its still one of the best mailers for mailing lists)>
I have a "Reply To Mailinglist"-button left of the "Reply"-button in the menubar. Works perfectly for me. ;) (Right-click on the menubar, choose "Configure Toolbars", choose "Main Toolbar <kmail_part>", the rest is easy) Cheers, Leen
Robert Smits wrote:
Errrr....I have a confession to make. I've often used this technique to get the email address of the list without ever intending to hijack a thread....I just assumed it would start an entirely new thread. I suspect a great many people would assume the same thing.
In many e-mail programs, you can right click on the "From:" address and create a new message to that address or copy it. I've added this list to my address book and created a short nickname, so that I can easily create a new message. Now, if they'd only fix the "Reply to:" problem. ;-)
* James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> [08-12-06 07:47]:
Now, if they'd only fix the "Reply to:" problem. ;-)
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html -- 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
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> [08-12-06 07:47]:
Now, if they'd only fix the "Reply to:" problem. ;-)
A consistent method of working would be nice, but this is a client problem rather than the list. However a number of lists mess things up by trying to enforce their own rules :( I am trying to send this to the list. All the messages from this list end up in my SUSE folder, and it would be nice if when I select 'compose' against that folder the list address came up - much like newsgroups? This would help 'thread hijack' as well. Since nothing in the SUSE folder was sent to me personally *I* expect to always reply to the list, but currently everything gets switched as if I was personally replying to an individual. I can see the 'argument' that you may want to reply privately, but I would only expect that on my 'inbox' when I RECEIVE an email privately. If I am in an open 'channel' then emails are public. So personally I need a client that Unmuges the Mung and replies automatically to the relevant address for a folder ;) In the meantime I'll live with the agro and continue to use Mozilla. :) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/ Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc. - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
On Monday 14 August 2006 10:20, Lester Caine wrote:
I am trying to send this to the list. All the messages from this list end up in my SUSE folder, and it would be nice if when I select 'compose' against that folder the list address came up - much like newsgroups? This would help 'thread hijack' as well.
KMail does this trivially. You can set it up in the menu "Folder -> Mailing List Management". Since it handles the list headers correctly you don't even need to set this up though, since you can just hit 'L' to reply to the list.
So personally I need a client that Unmuges the Mung and replies automatically to the relevant address for a folder ;)
KMail, and probably others, do let you do this :)
In the meantime I'll live with the agro and continue to use Mozilla. :)
Enjoy ;)
On 06/08/14 10:20 (GMT+0100) Lester Caine apparently typed:
A consistent method of working would be nice, but this is a client problem rather than the list. However a number of lists mess things up by trying to enforce their own rules :(
I am trying to send this to the list. All the messages from this list end up in my SUSE folder, and it would be nice if when I select 'compose' against that folder the list address came up - much like newsgroups? This would help 'thread hijack' as well.
Since nothing in the SUSE folder was sent to me personally *I* expect to always reply to the list, but currently everything gets switched as if I was personally replying to an individual. I can see the 'argument' that you may want to reply privately, but I would only expect that on my 'inbox' when I RECEIVE an email privately. If I am in an open 'channel' then emails are public.
So personally I need a client that Unmuges the Mung and replies automatically to the relevant address for a folder ;) In the meantime I'll live with the agro and continue to use Mozilla. :)
Voting for https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=344998 might help in this regard. -- "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 Saturday 12 August 2006 03:46, James Knott wrote:
In many e-mail programs, you can right click on the "From:" address and create a new message to that address or copy it. I've added this list to my address book and created a short nickname, so that I can easily create a new message.
Now, if they'd only fix the "Reply to:" problem. ;-)
That too is easily fixed with proper mailer, rather than a web browser masquerading as a mailer. Kmail makes list replies as easy as hitting the letter L, without the list havint to violate rfc2822. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 10:52 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Saturday 12 August 2006 03:46, James Knott wrote:
In many e-mail programs, you can right click on the "From:" address and create a new message to that address or copy it. I've added this list to my address book and created a short nickname, so that I can easily create a new message.
Now, if they'd only fix the "Reply to:" problem. ;-)
That too is easily fixed with proper mailer, rather than a web browser masquerading as a mailer.
Kmail makes list replies as easy as hitting the letter L, without the list havint to violate rfc2822.
Also easily done in Evolution. <ctrl>L for list R for the person. assuming the list is handling headers correctly. Some need a reply to all and the list comes in the CC line hot the To:. Luckly those are few. -- ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ | | | | [__ | | | |___ |_|_| ___] | \/
On Saturday 12 August 2006 15:02, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 10:52 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Saturday 12 August 2006 03:46, James Knott wrote:
In many e-mail programs, you can right click on the "From:" address and create a new message to that address or copy it. I've added this list to my address book and created a short nickname, so that I can easily create a new message.
Now, if they'd only fix the "Reply to:" problem. ;-)
That too is easily fixed with proper mailer, rather than a web browser masquerading as a mailer.
Kmail makes list replies as easy as hitting the letter L, without the list havint to violate rfc2822.
Also easily done in Evolution. <ctrl>L for list R for the person. assuming the list is handling headers correctly. Some need a reply to all and the list comes in the CC line hot the To:. Luckly those are few.
Kmail has one of those brain-dead regions as well. If you hit L (to reply to the list) out of habit but the message did not actually come from a list it is too dumb to substitute the sender address, and you end up with a message set up with NO adressee... What's up with that? -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
John Andersen wrote:
On Saturday 12 August 2006 15:02, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 10:52 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Saturday 12 August 2006 03:46, James Knott wrote:
In many e-mail programs, you can right click on the "From:" address and create a new message to that address or copy it. I've added this list to my address book and created a short nickname, so that I can easily create a new message.
Now, if they'd only fix the "Reply to:" problem. ;-) That too is easily fixed with proper mailer, rather than a web browser masquerading as a mailer.
Kmail makes list replies as easy as hitting the letter L, without the list havint to violate rfc2822.
Where is this subject-- that of the "proper" reply to a mailing list-- addressed in rfc 2822?
Also easily done in Evolution. <ctrl>L for list R for the person. assuming the list is handling headers correctly. Some need a reply to all and the list comes in the CC line hot the To:. Luckly those are few.
Kmail has one of those brain-dead regions as well. If you hit L (to reply to the list) out of habit but the message did not actually come from a list it is too dumb to substitute the sender address, and you end up with a message set up with NO adressee... What's up with that?
Doesn't it seem a bit ludicrous to have a rule which everyone is obligated to break by finding a work-around or by switching to a different (a so-called "proper") email client or by fixing it manually with every email sent? The rationale for this rule seems to be, "What server configuration can be set in order to inconvenience as many people as possible?" Not to worry though. This topic will probably die off in twenty or thirty years. Maybe not... but probably.
On Monday 14 August 2006 09:23, ken wrote:
Where is this subject-- that of the "proper" reply to a mailing list-- addressed in rfc 2822?
RFC2822 explains why Reply-To is _not_ the correct way to manage this issue. RFC2369 explains the correct method. (RFC2919 is also relevant.)
William Gallafent wrote:
On Monday 14 August 2006 09:23, ken wrote:
Where is this subject-- that of the "proper" reply to a mailing list-- addressed in rfc 2822?
RFC2822 explains why Reply-To is _not_ the correct way to manage this issue.
So then where in rfc 2822 is the use Reply-To in email distribution lists addressed?
RFC2369 explains the correct method. (RFC2919 is also relevant.)
From: "ken" <gebser@speakeasy.net>
William Gallafent wrote:
On Monday 14 August 2006 09:23, ken wrote:
Where is this subject-- that of the "proper" reply to a mailing list-- addressed in rfc 2822?
RFC2822 explains why Reply-To is _not_ the correct way to manage this issue.
So then where in rfc 2822 is the use Reply-To in email distribution lists addressed?
It does not matter. RFC 2822 is not a standard. It is only a draft standard that cannot reach concensus. Insisting on people obeying ridiculous rules is stupid. When those rules are not even "official standards" there's no describing what level if intelligence is involved; but, it's amazing they can type. {^_^}
On Monday 14 August 2006 10:00, jdow wrote:
It does not matter. RFC 2822 is not a standard. It is only a draft standard that cannot reach concensus.
It's actually a "proposed standard", which is less far advanced than "draft standard" (I think). It is, nevertheless, the best available document describing how things work at the moment.
Insisting on people obeying ridiculous rules is stupid.
I agree, and I haven't noticed anybody insisting that anyone else follows any ridiculous rules. The observation has simply been made that this list is configured according to the closest thing to a standard which _does_ exist, and which is likely eventually to become a standard. Many people are using mail clients which are deficient with respect to another long-lived _proposed_ standard (RFC2369), and suggest that the list should deviate from RFC2822 (by setting Reply-To despite not being the author of the message) in order to save them one click until their mail client implements appropriate handling of the RFC2369 headers. I'm sure well-reasoned suggestions for the modification of the meaning of Reply-To (which would have to include changing it from an originator header to a resent or trace header, I imagine) in future RFCs designed to supersede RFC2822 will be welcomed by those drafting those documents. A legal analogy: If you don't like a legal bill before it becomes an act, then lobby democratically to have it altered before it's made law; if you don't like a law which has already been passed, then lobby to have it rescinded or superseded; in the mean time, you may choose to break it or abide by it, as may everybody else. The owner of the list has chosen to abide by the closest thing to a law for email that exists so far. The internet is very young, so many areas do not have any "laws" that have yet been passed; they are still only proposed. It's not "illegal" to deviate from a proposed standard. To avoid chaos, though, and to promote interoperability, it's advisable to abide by the proposed "laws" which do exist, and it's helpful to suggest improvements to them which will ensure that when, in the fullness of time, they become standards, they do indeed reflect the needs and desires of those whom they affect, viz: us. So, suggest away.
On Monday 14 August 2006 02:32, William Gallafent wrote:
On Monday 14 August 2006 10:00, jdow wrote:
It does not matter. RFC 2822 is not a standard. It is only a draft standard that cannot reach concensus.
It's actually a "proposed standard", which is less far advanced than "draft standard" (I think). It is, nevertheless, the best available document describing how things work at the moment.
The entire Internet and virtually all non-proprietary protocols are "governed" by RFCs. There are no other laws in this area. To Dismiss RFCs because they are not universally encoded in statute is ridiculous. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
From: "John Andersen" <jsa@pen.homeip.net>
To Dismiss RFCs because they are not universally encoded in statute is ridiculous.
What are the conditions like in your pigeon coop. If you want to meet all RFCs you MUST have one, right? {^_-}
From: "William Gallafent" <william@gallaf.net>
On Monday 14 August 2006 10:00, jdow wrote:
It does not matter. RFC 2822 is not a standard. It is only a draft standard that cannot reach concensus.
It's actually a "proposed standard", which is less far advanced than "draft standard" (I think). It is, nevertheless, the best available document describing how things work at the moment.
I checked STD-1. It is in the "draft standard" list. It seems to have been around since God was a child so I suspect it just cannot gather the necessary concensus.
Insisting on people obeying ridiculous rules is stupid.
I agree, and I haven't noticed anybody insisting that anyone else follows any ridiculous rules. The observation has simply been made that this list is configured according to the closest thing to a standard which _does_ exist, and which is likely eventually to become a standard. Many people are using mail clients which are deficient with respect to another long-lived _proposed_ standard (RFC2369), and suggest that the list should deviate from RFC2822 (by setting Reply-To despite not being the author of the message) in order to save them one click until their mail client implements appropriate handling of the RFC2369 headers.
That doesn't make it "right", though. {^,-}
I'm sure well-reasoned suggestions for the modification of the meaning of Reply-To (which would have to include changing it from an originator header to a resent or trace header, I imagine) in future RFCs designed to supersede RFC2822 will be welcomed by those drafting those documents.
A legal analogy: If you don't like a legal bill before it becomes an act, then lobby democratically to have it altered before it's made law; if you don't like a law which has already been passed, then lobby to have it rescinded or superseded; in the mean time, you may choose to break it or abide by it, as may everybody else. The owner of the list has chosen to abide by the closest thing to a law for email that exists so far.
The internet is very young, so many areas do not have any "laws" that have yet been passed; they are still only proposed. It's not "illegal" to deviate from a proposed standard. To avoid chaos, though, and to promote interoperability, it's advisable to abide by the proposed "laws" which do exist, and it's helpful to suggest improvements to them which will ensure that when, in the fullness of time, they become standards, they do indeed reflect the needs and desires of those whom they affect, viz: us. So, suggest away.
I suspect this issue is not particularly well suited to being a "standard" which should be obeyed and probably never will be on a wide basis. Meanwhile I need to fiddle this list in procmail, too. Then what others do with headers doesn't matter. Replies will go to the list as Ghod intended. {^_^} Joanne
jdow wrote:
From: "William Gallafent" <william@gallaf.net>
On Monday 14 August 2006 10:00, jdow wrote:
....
Insisting on people obeying ridiculous rules is stupid.
....
That doesn't make it "right", though. {^,-}
....
This, IMO, is the essence of this whole hullabaloo: intelligent vs. "correct".
I suspect this issue is not particularly well suited to being a "standard" which should be obeyed and probably never will be on a wide basis. Meanwhile I need to fiddle this list in procmail, too. Then what others do with headers doesn't matter. Replies will go to the list as Ghod intended.
Joanne, For me, replying to the list isnt' a major problem. But I'd also like to automatically set my Reply-to field for outgoing mail to the list's address as well. As far as I know, this isn't something that procmail can do (as it handles only incoming mail), correct?
{^_^} Joanne
* ken <gebser@speakeasy.net> [08-14-06 17:39]:
For me, replying to the list isnt' a major problem. But I'd also like to automatically set my Reply-to field for outgoing mail to the list's address as well. As far as I know, this isn't something that procmail can do (as it handles only incoming mail), correct?
A simple matter to add a 'Reply-To:' header on your incoming mail originating from opensuse* to accomplish your desire. There is no necessity to fool with outgoing mail. This also abides by the RFC as it will only affect *your* submissions. -- 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
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* ken <gebser@speakeasy.net> [08-14-06 17:39]:
For me, replying to the list isnt' a major problem. But I'd also like to automatically set my Reply-to field for outgoing mail to the list's address as well. As far as I know, this isn't something that procmail can do (as it handles only incoming mail), correct?
A simple matter to add a 'Reply-To:' header on your incoming mail originating from opensuse* to accomplish your desire. There is no necessity to fool with outgoing mail. This also abides by the RFC as it will only affect *your* submissions.
This doesn't make sense. Please read my question again. Thanks.
* ken <gebser@speakeasy.net> [08-14-06 19:05]:
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* ken <gebser@speakeasy.net> [08-14-06 17:39]:
For me, replying to the list isnt' a major problem. But I'd also like to automatically set my Reply-to field for outgoing mail to the list's address as well. As far as I know, this isn't something that procmail can do (as it handles only incoming mail), correct?
A simple matter to add a 'Reply-To:' header on your incoming mail originating from opensuse* to accomplish your desire. There is no necessity to fool with outgoing mail. This also abides by the RFC as it will only affect *your* submissions.
This doesn't make sense. Please read my question again.
It sure does. If you add via procmail a 'Reply-To: <list-address>' header to incoming list mail, when you reply to it, it will automagically take the list address. What is there to not understand? :0: * ^X-Mailinglist:.*opensuse|\ ^TO_.*opensuse@ ! $FORMAIL -i "Reply-To: opensuse@opensuse.org" $MAILDIR/opensuse this will add the header "Reply-To: opensuse@opensuse.org" to all opensuse list mail. When you decide to post an answer or comment to an opensuse posting, "reply" will select opensuse@opensuse.org address. is more explanation necessary? -- 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
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* ken <gebser@speakeasy.net> [08-14-06 19:05]:
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* ken <gebser@speakeasy.net> [08-14-06 17:39]:
For me, replying to the list isnt' a major problem. But I'd also like to automatically set my Reply-to field for outgoing mail to the list's address as well. As far as I know, this isn't something that procmail can do (as it handles only incoming mail), correct? A simple matter to add a 'Reply-To:' header on your incoming mail originating from opensuse* to accomplish your desire. There is no necessity to fool with outgoing mail. This also abides by the RFC as it will only affect *your* submissions. This doesn't make sense. Please read my question again.
It sure does. If you add via procmail a 'Reply-To: <list-address>' header to incoming list mail, when you reply to it, it will automagically take the list address. What is there to not understand?
:0: * ^X-Mailinglist:.*opensuse|\ ^TO_.*opensuse@ ! $FORMAIL -i "Reply-To: opensuse@opensuse.org" $MAILDIR/opensuse
this will add the header "Reply-To: opensuse@opensuse.org" to all opensuse list mail. When you decide to post an answer or comment to an opensuse posting, "reply" will select opensuse@opensuse.org address.
is more explanation necessary?
Thanks for the clarification. I see what you're saying now. You threw me a bit of a high-and-inside curve ball with the assertion that this solution "abides by the RFC [2822]", to wit: If *my* adding a Reply-To (to the list) to incoming mail doesn't violate the RFC, how is it that list server doing the same thing _does_ violate the RFC? I'm not asking you to 'explain your way out of this contradiction' or anything like that. I don't put myself in the "correct" camp of the issue (I'm much more an advocate of the sensible... even more of universal congruity). But it could be that *adding* a Reply-To doesn't violate 2822 (for those squeamish about that); i.e., the list server could *add* a "Reply-To suse-linux-e@suse.com" to all its incoming mail and this would make both the "correct" and sensible camps happy. It wouldn't be _changing_ the author's Reply-To, but it would allow the list to function like a many-to-many medium... as originally intended. (Yes, this would mean posters would receive duplicates. But (1) this is, IMO, far less annoying and (2) could be filtered out easily on the client side and, should we find enlightenment, perhaps eventually on the server side.) Would this lexical workaround applied to the list server raise anyone's hackles? If so, how?
ken wrote:
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* ken <gebser@speakeasy.net> [08-14-06 17:39]:
For me, replying to the list isnt' a major problem. But I'd also like to automatically set my Reply-to field for outgoing mail to the list's address as well. As far as I know, this isn't something that procmail can do (as it handles only incoming mail), correct? A simple matter to add a 'Reply-To:' header on your incoming mail originating from opensuse* to accomplish your desire. There is no necessity to fool with outgoing mail. This also abides by the RFC as it will only affect *your* submissions. This doesn't make sense. Please read my question again. It sure does. If you add via procmail a 'Reply-To: <list-address>'
* ken <gebser@speakeasy.net> [08-14-06 19:05]: header to incoming list mail, when you reply to it, it will automagically take the list address. What is there to not understand?
:0: * ^X-Mailinglist:.*opensuse|\ ^TO_.*opensuse@ ! $FORMAIL -i "Reply-To: opensuse@opensuse.org" $MAILDIR/opensuse
this will add the header "Reply-To: opensuse@opensuse.org" to all opensuse list mail. When you decide to post an answer or comment to an opensuse posting, "reply" will select opensuse@opensuse.org address.
is more explanation necessary?
Thanks for the clarification. I see what you're saying now. You threw me a bit of a high-and-inside curve ball with the assertion that this solution "abides by the RFC [2822]", to wit:
If *my* adding a Reply-To (to the list) to incoming mail doesn't violate the RFC, how is it that list server doing the same thing _does_ violate the RFC?
I'm not asking you to 'explain your way out of this contradiction' or anything like that. I don't put myself in the "correct" camp of the issue (I'm much more an advocate of the sensible... even more of universal congruity). But it could be that *adding* a Reply-To doesn't violate 2822 (for those squeamish about that); i.e., the list server could *add* a "Reply-To suse-linux-e@suse.com" to all its incoming mail and this would make both the "correct" and sensible camps happy. It wouldn't be _changing_ the author's Reply-To, but it would allow the list to function like a many-to-many medium... as originally intended.
(Yes, this would mean posters would receive duplicates. But (1) this is, IMO, far less annoying and (2) could be filtered out easily on the client side and, should we find enlightenment, perhaps eventually on the server side.)
Would this lexical workaround applied to the list server raise anyone's hackles? If so, how?
I am not into this thing anymore (after years of arguments in the Fidonet world back in late 80's early 90's) about RFCs, but just on the above point. I subscribe to the smart updater forum, the smart@labix.org list, and there the server has Reply-to in the message headers which is set to 'Reply-to smart@labix.org' . Now the interesting part about that is that when I hit the Reply To All button on my mailer (Thunderbird) the ONLY address which comes up in the TO field is.... you guessed it, smart@labix.org. There are NO other TOs or CCs. Nothing. My reply goes only to smart@labix.org. Why can't the SuSE Help server put in the Repy-To field and make everybody happy? (I don't suppose this would ever happen, it's too sensible.) Cheers. -- This computer is environment-friendly and is running on OpenSuSE 10.1
Basil Chupin wrote:
ken wrote:
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
.... add the header "Reply-To: opensuse@opensuse.org" to all opensuse list mail. When you decide to post an answer or comment to an opensuse posting, "reply" will select opensuse@opensuse.org address.
is more explanation necessary?
Thanks for the clarification. I see what you're saying now. You threw me a bit of a high-and-inside curve ball with the assertion that this solution "abides by the RFC [2822]", to wit:
If *my* adding a Reply-To (to the list) to incoming mail doesn't violate the RFC, how is it that list server doing the same thing _does_ violate the RFC?
I'm not asking you to 'explain your way out of this contradiction' or anything like that. I don't put myself in the "correct" camp of the issue (I'm much more an advocate of the sensible... even more of universal congruity). But it could be that *adding* a Reply-To doesn't violate 2822 (for those squeamish about that); i.e., the list server could *add* a "Reply-To suse-linux-e@suse.com" to all its incoming mail and this would make both the "correct" and sensible camps happy. It wouldn't be _changing_ the author's Reply-To, but it would allow the list to function like a many-to-many medium... as originally intended.
(Yes, this would mean posters would receive duplicates. But (1) this is, IMO, far less annoying and (2) could be filtered out easily on the client side and, should we find enlightenment, perhaps eventually on the server side.)
Would this lexical workaround applied to the list server raise anyone's hackles? If so, how?
I am not into this thing anymore (after years of arguments in the Fidonet world back in late 80's early 90's) about RFCs, but just on the above point.
I can relate. I've been doing email lists since 1981 and they've always functioned in the way you describe below (what I've termed alternately the intelligent/sensible method). Those in the opposing ("correct") camp draw on one sentence in RFC 2822 which suggests that no one should change the contents of the author's Reply-To field, therefore the mailing list software should leave it alone and the default Reply-To is always the poster instead of the list. It seems to me that the recipient of an email *can* alter the Reply-To field of an incoming email. Indeed, I can take an email I receive and send or not send my reply to it to anyone I please. As the recipient of the email, I can even delete the email if that's what I want to do. So I don't see how that one sentence in RFC 2822 applies to any recipient of any email. Now isn't the list server the recipient of my (and all subscribers') emails? After all, that's where I'm (and all subscribers are) sending email. So as the recipient of my and others' email, just as I am allowed to change the Reply-To field, I believe the list server is likewise allowed to alter the Reply-To field... and _should_ in a sensible way, in a way which makes it a many-to-many technology by default, i.e., without need of a separate, "correct" email client or cludges or technical workarounds on the client side, a way which allows even Windows users to participate in this list. This doesn't mean that a list server is permitted to change anything else in subscribers' emails, not the body or the "Sender" or "From" or "Date" fields. Just the Reply-To. Therefore, in the rare instance when I want to reply only to the author of an email sent to the list, then I can do that also.
I subscribe to the smart updater forum, the smart@labix.org list, and there the server has Reply-to in the message headers which is set to 'Reply-to smart@labix.org' .
Now the interesting part about that is that when I hit the Reply To All button on my mailer (Thunderbird) the ONLY address which comes up in the TO field is.... you guessed it, smart@labix.org. There are NO other TOs or CCs. Nothing. My reply goes only to smart@labix.org.
Yeah. I agree. Generally and historically this is how distribution lists function and how they were originally intended to work. Even those in the "correct" camp would concur with this, but they insist that one sentence in a draft RFC means we should all change email clients or install cludges or hand-edit the addresses every time we correspond with the list. I always thought that computers were supposed to make life simpler and easier, not more complicated and time-consuming and difficult.
Why can't the SuSE Help server put in the Repy-To field and make everybody happy?
(I don't suppose this would ever happen, it's too sensible.)
We need to be patient... I'm sure it'll happen eventually. In twenty or thirty years we'll all look back on this and have a good chuckle.
Cheers.
* ken <gebser@speakeasy.net> [08-15-06 08:41]:
Even those in the "correct" camp would concur with this, but they insist that one sentence in a draft RFC means we should all change email clients or install cludges or hand-edit the addresses every time we correspond with the list.
Point: It is a "Proposed Standard", not a "Draft". -- 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
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* ken <gebser@speakeasy.net> [08-15-06 08:41]:
Even those in the "correct" camp would concur with this, but they insist that one sentence in a draft RFC means we should all change email clients or install cludges or hand-edit the addresses every time we correspond with the list.
Point: It is a "Proposed Standard", not a "Draft".
The real point here, Patrick, is that it matter not whether it is called "Proposed" or "Draft" - it is simply all a big nothing because it has not been accepted and ratified as THE standard. Until it is (and this may take decades!) you can do whatever you like :-) . Cheers. -- This computer is environment-friendly and is running on OpenSuSE 10.1
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* ken <gebser@speakeasy.net> [08-15-06 08:41]:
Even those in the "correct" camp would concur with this, but they insist that one sentence in a draft RFC means we should all change email clients or install cludges or hand-edit the addresses every time we correspond with the list.
Point: It is a "Proposed Standard", not a "Draft".
Okay. But it's still not actually a standard.
ken wrote:
Basil Chupin wrote:
ken wrote:
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
.... add the header "Reply-To: opensuse@opensuse.org" to all opensuse list mail. When you decide to post an answer or comment to an opensuse posting, "reply" will select opensuse@opensuse.org address.
[pruned]
I am not into this thing anymore (after years of arguments in the Fidonet world back in late 80's early 90's) about RFCs, but just on the above point.
I can relate. I've been doing email lists since 1981 and they've always functioned in the way you describe below (what I've termed alternately the intelligent/sensible method). Those in the opposing ("correct") camp draw on one sentence in RFC 2822 which suggests that no one should change the contents of the author's Reply-To field, therefore the mailing list software should leave it alone and the default Reply-To is always the poster instead of the list.
It seems to me that the recipient of an email *can* alter the Reply-To field of an incoming email. Indeed, I can take an email I receive and send or not send my reply to it to anyone I please. As the recipient of the email, I can even delete the email if that's what I want to do. So I don't see how that one sentence in RFC 2822 applies to any recipient of any email.
<Groan> You are doing it, aren't you? You are drawing me into something I don't want to touch and haven't touched since early 90's :-) . But, OK, you've done it :-) . Have to disagree with you. Let's not touch on the subject of e-mail because there are 2 types of e-mail: the private ones and the ones which end up here- in a public forum but distributed in e-mail form. With respect of *private* e-mail you have no right to distribute it to anyone else UNLESS you obtain the permission of the sender. Re the e-mails which end up here, while the privacy thing is irrelevant -- but CROSS-POSTING would be - you do not have the right to alter the contents et al. because you are not the author/owner of the e-mail. YOur mail should be transmitted in its original form and without any alterations.
Now isn't the list server the recipient of my (and all subscribers') emails? After all, that's where I'm (and all subscribers are) sending email. So as the recipient of my and others' email, just as I am allowed to change the Reply-To field, I believe the list server is likewise allowed to alter the Reply-To field... and _should_ in a sensible way, in a way which makes it a many-to-many technology by default, i.e., without need of a separate, "correct" email client or cludges or technical workarounds on the client side, a way which allows even Windows users to participate in this list.
This doesn't mean that a list server is permitted to change anything else in subscribers' emails, not the body or the "Sender" or "From" or "Date" fields. Just the Reply-To. Therefore, in the rare instance when I want to reply only to the author of an email sent to the list, then I can do that also.
Now, having said what I said above, can you point out to me ANY e-mail message which has come to this forum that has a REPLY-TO field in it? I can't see one in any of the messages I have looked at. To me that means that the author/sender did *not* have this field in his/her original message and therefore *this* (SuSE) server can add this field to all the e-mails which arrive in this forum. End of story :-) . Cheers. -- This computer is environment-friendly and is running on OpenSuSE 10.1
* Basil Chupin <blchupin@tpg.com.au> [08-15-06 09:03]:
Now, having said what I said above, can you point out to me ANY e-mail message which has come to this forum that has a REPLY-TO field in it?
There is/was, but I haven't seen one since December 2005. I have quoted relevant lines from the header. X-Mailinglist: suse-linux-e X-Message-Number-for-archive: 258011 Delivered-To: mailing list suse-linux-e@suse.com Received: (qmail 11112 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2005 22:28:01 -0000 From: Gil Weber <gil@gilweber.com> Reply-To: gil@gilweber.com To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:27:58 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <121720052242.9430.43A494530007FE40000024D62200734076989A0207040207029D0A04@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <121720052242.9430.43A494530007FE40000024D62200734076989A0207040207029D0A04@comcast.net> -- 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
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Basil Chupin <blchupin@tpg.com.au> [08-15-06 09:03]:
Now, having said what I said above, can you point out to me ANY e-mail message which has come to this forum that has a REPLY-TO field in it?
There is/was, but I haven't seen one since December 2005. I have quoted relevant lines from the header.
X-Mailinglist: suse-linux-e X-Message-Number-for-archive: 258011 Delivered-To: mailing list suse-linux-e@suse.com Received: (qmail 11112 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2005 22:28:01 -0000 From: Gil Weber <gil@gilweber.com> Reply-To: gil@gilweber.com To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:27:58 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <121720052242.9430.43A494530007FE40000024D62200734076989A0207040207029D0A04@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <121720052242.9430.43A494530007FE40000024D62200734076989A0207040207029D0A04@comcast.net>
Ah OK, so it happens. But, heck, one in all the thousands between 24/12/05 and today?! :-) . BTW, have you looked at the header(s) for messages from you? You are using gmail as your mail host and for some reason it appears that the SuSE server inserts not the Reply-To field but one which is doing the same thing but called Mail-Followup-To . Replying to one of your messages inserts only the SuSE server address. Rather interesting I think. Cheers. -- This computer is environment-friendly and is running on OpenSuSE 10.1
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 14:38, Basil Chupin wrote (in reply to Patrick Shanahan):
... it appears that the SuSE server inserts not the Reply-To field but one which is doing the same thing but called Mail-Followup-To. Replying to one of your messages inserts only the SuSE server address. Rather interesting I think.
Wow, that really looks like a can of worms! http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/ietf-822/2005-05/msg00050.html
William Gallafent wrote:
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 14:38, Basil Chupin wrote (in reply to Patrick Shanahan):
... it appears that the SuSE server inserts not the Reply-To field but one which is doing the same thing but called Mail-Followup-To. Replying to one of your messages inserts only the SuSE server address. Rather interesting I think.
Wow, that really looks like a can of worms!
http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/ietf-822/2005-05/msg00050.html
Anything to do with "standards" for messages, whether in Fidonet or Internet, will be a can of worms. Always has been, always will be. BTW, have you looked at the header of your message to Anders Johansson, "Proposed SuSE List Etiquette"? You posted that message as a new, original, message in THIS forum and as a result it does not contain a Reply-To field :-) . But this one (the one I am replying to now) was posted it seems in the suse-ot list and therefore the SuSE server inserted a Reply-To (reply to suse-ot list). All fascinating stuff, ain't it? :-) . One thing here, another thing there. Standards, standards, standards! "We heard of them! And we lives by them!" :-) . Cheers. -- This computer is environment-friendly and is running on OpenSuSE 10.1
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 15:17, Basil Chupin wrote:
But this one (the one I am replying to now) was posted it seems in the suse-ot list and therefore the SuSE server inserted a Reply-To (reply to suse-ot list).
Again, I actually inserted that Reply-To myself (for fun, and to indicate my intentions ;) - none of the lists I subscribe to alter the Reply-To header :)
* Basil Chupin <blchupin@tpg.com.au> [08-15-06 09:40]:
Ah OK, so it happens. But, heck, one in all the thousands between 24/12/05 and today?! :-) .
Yes, I can site 500+ if you like. I only sited one for example :^).
BTW, have you looked at the header(s) for messages from you? You are using gmail as your mail host and for some reason it appears that the SuSE server inserts not the Reply-To field but one which is doing the same thing but called Mail-Followup-To . Replying to one of your messages inserts only the SuSE server address. Rather interesting I think.
No, I rarely post mail via gmail, but I do receive mail there and dl with fetchmail. I just use that From: address so the list accepts my mail. That way I see my own posts :^). -- 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
I used lsmod and insmod but I can not read on the module. Do you have any idea? the kernel es SuSe 10 enterprise desktop 2.6.16.20-0.12 Thanks --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 14:03, Basil Chupin wrote:
Now, having said what I said above, can you point out to me ANY e-mail message which has come to this forum that has a REPLY-TO field in it?
This one, where I unsuccessfully attempted to divert the conversation to a more appropriate list: Message-Id: <200608150938.47561.william@gallaf.net> Of course, this didn't help people who configure their systems not to honour this header.
I can't see one in any of the messages I have looked at. To me that means that the author/sender did *not* have this field in his/her original message and therefore *this* (SuSE) server can add this field to all the e-mails which arrive in this forum.
Since the SuSE server is not the author of the message, it does not have that right. From, Sender and Reply-To all refer to the _originator_ of the message, not to any system which resends it.
End of story :-) .
You wish ;)
William Gallafent wrote:
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 14:03, Basil Chupin wrote:
Now, having said what I said above, can you point out to me ANY e-mail message which has come to this forum that has a REPLY-TO field in it?
This one, where I unsuccessfully attempted to divert the conversation to a more appropriate list:
Message-Id: <200608150938.47561.william@gallaf.net>
To me this is not enough information to find the exact message you are referring to. But, have you looked at the header to your message (the one I am replying to)? For some inexplicable reason it has a Repy-To field, and it is "suse-ot@suse.com" which means that a SuSE server put in the Reply-To field.
Of course, this didn't help people who configure their systems not to honour this header.
I can't see one in any of the messages I have looked at. To me that means that the author/sender did *not* have this field in his/her original message and therefore *this* (SuSE) server can add this field to all the e-mails which arrive in this forum.
Since the SuSE server is not the author of the message, it does not have that right. From, Sender and Reply-To all refer to the _originator_ of the message, not to any system which resends it.
I agree and it does not contradict what I said earlier. Perhaps I wasn't clear, or people may not interpret correctly what I wrote. I said that a person's message should (and it really should be "must") not be interfered with during transmission and arrive at the destination as originally sent. (Proviso: all ISPs reserve the right I believe to delete a message if it contains a virus et al.) However, this does not mean that after its arrival the server on which it has arrived cannot add some field(s) which do not interfere with the original message. If there is no Reply-To field in the original message then the server can add one (Reply-To: SuSE server - just like to your message). If there is a Reply-To field already then the server honours it and does not insert its own field. QED.
End of story :-) .
You wish ;)
"Watch this space" as they say in the movies :-) . Cheers. -- This computer is environment-friendly and is running on OpenSuSE 10.1
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 14:54, Basil Chupin wrote:
William Gallafent wrote:
Message-Id: <200608150938.47561.william@gallaf.net>
To me this is not enough information to find the exact message you are referring to.
That's OK, I did it here too :)
But, have you looked at the header to your message (the one I am replying to)? For some inexplicable reason it has a Repy-To field, and it is "suse-ot@suse.com" which means that a SuSE server put in the Reply-To field.
Allow me to explicate: I (being the author) put that header in myself - it wasn't put there by the server. To quote our favourite RFC, 'When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent.' So, I used that header to express my suggestion that this thread would live better in the suse-ot list. Admittedly, I didn't really expect that to happen :)
I said that a person's message should (and it really should be "must") not be interfered with during transmission and arrive at the destination as originally sent. (Proviso: all ISPs reserve the right I believe to delete a message if it contains a virus et al.)
However, this does not mean that after its arrival the server on which it has arrived cannot add some field(s) which do not interfere with the original message.
When has a message "arrived"? when it gets to the SuSE server, or when it gets to a subscriber to the list? (I say the latter, and that the former is really a sort of glorified intelligent relay of some kind ;)
If there is no Reply-To field in the original message then the server can add one (Reply-To: SuSE server - just like to your message).
Critical point being that _I_ put that header in, not the server! The server reproduced it faithfully, fulfilling the "no interference" rule you state.
If there is a Reply-To field already then the server honours it and does not insert its own field. QED.
Here we differ. I interpret the Reply-To header as the email address which the _author_ suggests I send my reply to. If the list server adds it, it's misleading me in to thinking the author intended the reply to go to the list, whereas in fact that was the intention of the list server, and the author's decision to omit the Reply-To header has been overridden.
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Basil Chupin wrote:
Now, having said what I said above, can you point out to me ANY e-mail message which has come to this forum that has a REPLY-TO field in it?
Yep, The one I sent earlier today and of course this one. -- Regards, | Lions District 201 Q3 Rob Unsworth | IT & Internet Chairman Ipswich, Australia | http://www.lionsq3.asn.au -------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 15:04, Rob Unsworth wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Basil Chupin wrote:
Now, having said what I said above, can you point out to me ANY e-mail message which has come to this forum that has a REPLY-TO field in it?
Yep, The one I sent earlier today and of course this one.
The message in which you wrote this does not have a Reply-To header.
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, William Gallafent wrote:
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 15:04, Rob Unsworth wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Basil Chupin wrote:
Now, having said what I said above, can you point out to me ANY e-mail message which has come to this forum that has a REPLY-TO field in it?
Yep, The one I sent earlier today and of course this one.
The message in which you wrote this does not have a Reply-To header.
Of course not, I am having a dumb day :) The Reply To header is added when it arrives here, silly me, so I see the Reply To, but you (the list) does not. -- Regards, | Lions District 201 Q3 Rob Unsworth | IT & Internet Chairman Ipswich, Australia | http://www.lionsq3.asn.au -------------------------------------------------
Rob Unsworth wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Basil Chupin wrote:
Now, having said what I said above, can you point out to me ANY e-mail message which has come to this forum that has a REPLY-TO field in it?
Yep, The one I sent earlier today and of course this one.
Sorry Rob, but check the full header. There is no Reply-To field. Cheers. -- This computer is environment-friendly and is running on OpenSuSE 10.1
Basil Chupin wrote:
ken wrote:
Basil Chupin wrote:
ken wrote:
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
.... add the header "Reply-To: opensuse@opensuse.org" to all opensuse list mail. When you decide to post an answer or comment to an opensuse posting, "reply" will select opensuse@opensuse.org address. [pruned]
I am not into this thing anymore (after years of arguments in the Fidonet world back in late 80's early 90's) about RFCs, but just on the above point. I can relate. I've been doing email lists since 1981 and they've always functioned in the way you describe below (what I've termed alternately the intelligent/sensible method). Those in the opposing ("correct") camp draw on one sentence in RFC 2822 which suggests that no one should change the contents of the author's Reply-To field, therefore the mailing list software should leave it alone and the default Reply-To is always the poster instead of the list.
It seems to me that the recipient of an email *can* alter the Reply-To field of an incoming email. Indeed, I can take an email I receive and send or not send my reply to it to anyone I please. As the recipient of the email, I can even delete the email if that's what I want to do. So I don't see how that one sentence in RFC 2822 applies to any recipient of any email.
<Groan> You are doing it, aren't you? You are drawing me into something I don't want to touch and haven't touched since early 90's :-) . But, OK, you've done it :-) .
Sorry. Didn't intend this. :)
Have to disagree with you. Let's not touch on the subject of e-mail because there are 2 types of e-mail: the private ones and the ones which end up here- in a public forum but distributed in e-mail form.
With respect of *private* e-mail you have no right to distribute it to anyone else UNLESS you obtain the permission of the sender.
I don't think the public-private distinction is relevant or helpful here. There is, however, a distinction between emails which are confidential and those that are public. If I get an email about a music festival with the location included, I don't think I have to get the author's permission to resend it to others. If I get an email about a party at somebody's house with the address included, that should be considered confidential unless the resident of the house says it's okay to resend it. If I get an email from someone saying they have an embarrassing rash, that's confidential and shouldn't be resent (without the author's permission). But if I get an email about embarrassing rashes in general, without naming names, I don't see a problem resending it without the author's permission. As it pertains to a mailing list, confidentiality is not an issue. (If someone accidentally sends confidential content to a mailing list, we could hope it wouldn't be resent, but accidents are yet another issue.) On a mailing list it's implied, even expected, that emails we send to that list will be resent to others on the list. By subscribing to the list, I am giving my permission for emails I send to the list to be resent to others on this list and the converse. In fact, that's why I joined the list to begin with.
Re the e-mails which end up here, while the privacy thing is irrelevant -- but CROSS-POSTING would be - you do not have the right to alter the contents et al. because you are not the author/owner of the e-mail. YOur mail should be transmitted in its original form and without any alterations.
Yeah, I'd agree that we shouldn't edit others' email in a way which misrepresents what they said. But we expect that list servers will add headers to the emails we send it and receive from it.
Now isn't the list server the recipient of my (and all subscribers') emails? After all, that's where I'm (and all subscribers are) sending email. So as the recipient of my and others' email, just as I am allowed to change the Reply-To field, I believe the list server is likewise allowed to alter the Reply-To field... and _should_ in a sensible way, in a way which makes it a many-to-many technology by default, i.e., without need of a separate, "correct" email client or cludges or technical workarounds on the client side, a way which allows even Windows users to participate in this list.
This doesn't mean that a list server is permitted to change anything else in subscribers' emails, not the body or the "Sender" or "From" or "Date" fields. Just the Reply-To. Therefore, in the rare instance when I want to reply only to the author of an email sent to the list, then I can do that also.
Now, having said what I said above, can you point out to me ANY e-mail message which has come to this forum that has a REPLY-TO field in it?
If you put one in when you send an email to the list, the server (currently) leaves it there.
I can't see one in any of the messages I have looked at. To me that means that the author/sender did *not* have this field in his/her original message and therefore *this* (SuSE) server can add this field to all the e-mails which arrive in this forum.
That's what it looks like.
End of story :-) .
Hope it was a happy ending.
Cheers.
Back at ya.
* ken <gebser@speakeasy.net> [08-15-06 06:48]:
Thanks for the clarification. I see what you're saying now. You threw me a bit of a high-and-inside curve ball with the assertion that this solution "abides by the RFC [2822]", to wit:
If *my* adding a Reply-To (to the list) to incoming mail doesn't violate the RFC, how is it that list server doing the same thing _does_ violate the RFC?
Because the only affected publically (note: pubically) is that which you respond and you become the author with the right to add the 'Reply-To:' header. None of the other postings are seen by anyone but you. What you do on your box is your business and does not affect the rest of the world/list.
I'm not asking you to 'explain your way out of this contradiction' or anything like that.
No, it sure doesn't appear that way, expecially since there is no "contradiction".
I don't put myself in the "correct" camp of the issue (I'm much more an advocate of the sensible... even more of universal congruity).
Now you are *re*-expressing your opinion. You cannot see the logic. The rest is rant and snipped. -- 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
Ken, On Monday 14 August 2006 16:03, ken wrote:
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* ken <gebser@speakeasy.net> [08-14-06 17:39]:
For me, replying to the list isnt' a major problem. But I'd also like to automatically set my Reply-to field for outgoing mail to the list's address as well. As far as I know, this isn't something that procmail can do (as it handles only incoming mail), correct?
A simple matter to add a 'Reply-To:' header on your incoming mail originating from opensuse* to accomplish your desire. There is no necessity to fool with outgoing mail. This also abides by the RFC as it will only affect *your* submissions.
This doesn't make sense. Please read my question again.
One way or the other, KMail can edit (add, remove or modify) headers on incoming and outgoing mail based on any criteria that the filtering system allows. It can also pass mail through an external program. Deficient mail clients (MUAs) are the root of this whole recurring "debate." Use quality (free) software and take control over your email-based interactions while not foisting on others behaviors that contravene the standards.
Thanks.
Randall Schulz
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Ken,
On Monday 14 August 2006 16:03, ken wrote:
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* ken <gebser@speakeasy.net> [08-14-06 17:39]:
For me, replying to the list isnt' a major problem. But I'd also like to automatically set my Reply-to field for outgoing mail to the list's address as well. As far as I know, this isn't something that procmail can do (as it handles only incoming mail), correct? A simple matter to add a 'Reply-To:' header on your incoming mail originating from opensuse* to accomplish your desire. There is no necessity to fool with outgoing mail. This also abides by the RFC as it will only affect *your* submissions. This doesn't make sense. Please read my question again.
One way or the other, KMail can edit (add, remove or modify) headers on incoming and outgoing mail based on any criteria that the filtering system allows.
It can also pass mail through an external program.
Deficient mail clients (MUAs) are the root of this whole recurring "debate." Use quality (free) software and take control over your email-based interactions while not foisting on others behaviors that contravene the standards.
Thanks.
Randall Schulz
Randall, thanks for the tip. I've read this already many times on this list. I just don't think I should have to change my MUA, or use a particular client separately for this list. I'm on about thirty lists; what if they all required different clients? Plus, I don't buy the arguments of the "correct" camp. Kmail might be a fine email client, but for me it's largely a matter of principle. Secondly, don't assume self-interest. After quite a bit of (needless but enforced) diddling with Tbird, I have a client which functions with the current list configuration well enough for now (and, I'm hoping, doesn't mess up my communications with any of the other lists). So as a practical matter I, personally, don't need to change clients. I'm arguing, not for myself, but for the benefit of others on this and similarly configured lists, now and in future.
From: "ken" <gebser@speakeasy.net>
jdow wrote:
on a wide basis. Meanwhile I need to fiddle this list in procmail, too. Then what others do with headers doesn't matter. Replies will go to the list as Ghod intended.
Joanne,
For me, replying to the list isnt' a major problem. But I'd also like to automatically set my Reply-to field for outgoing mail to the list's address as well. As far as I know, this isn't something that procmail can do (as it handles only incoming mail), correct?
I fiddle the incoming from lists that don't do it what *I* consider the right way, that is to say the way that makes my life easier. {^_^}
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, jdow wrote:
From: "ken" <gebser@speakeasy.net>
jdow wrote:
on a wide basis. Meanwhile I need to fiddle this list in procmail, too. Then what others do with headers doesn't matter. Replies will go to the list as Ghod intended.
Joanne,
For me, replying to the list isnt' a major problem. But I'd also like to automatically set my Reply-to field for outgoing mail to the list's address as well. As far as I know, this isn't something that procmail can do (as it handles only incoming mail), correct?
I fiddle the incoming from lists that don't do it what *I* consider the right way, that is to say the way that makes my life easier.
This procmail recipe will add the Reply-To: to all incoming suse-linux-e emails. I use pine and when replying get the option to use the reply to address or the poster. I have no idea how it works on graphical clients, and no desire to find out..... well I am curious. :0f * ^X-Mailinglist: suse-linux-e | /usr/bin/formail -bfi "Reply-To:suse-linux-e@suse.com" :0 a: $HOME/Mail/IN-Suse-linux-e -- Regards, | Lions District 201 Q3 Rob Unsworth | IT & Internet Chairman Ipswich, Australia | http://www.lionsq3.asn.au -------------------------------------------------
On Monday 14 August 2006 09:48, ken wrote:
So then where in rfc 2822 is the use Reply-To in email distribution lists addressed?
Note that RFC2822 applies to all email, whether it is sent to a list server or not. === Section 3.6.2. Originator fields: When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent. === It is up to the _author_ of the message to decide what goes in the Reply-To header. Systems which subsequently process the email, after it has been sent, are not the author, and as such are not entitled to decide what should go in the Reply-To field. If the author wishes to put the list address in the Reply-To field (as I have here), that's fine.
From: "William Gallafent" <william@gallaf.net>
On Monday 14 August 2006 09:48, ken wrote:
So then where in rfc 2822 is the use Reply-To in email distribution lists addressed?
Note that RFC2822 applies to all email, whether it is sent to a list server or not.
No, it does not apply to ANY mail unless the particular ISP or user wishes it to apply. RFC2822 is NOT a standard. It is MERELY a draft standard. {^_^} There goes Joanne being picky again.
William Gallafent wrote:
On Monday 14 August 2006 09:48, ken wrote:
So then where in rfc 2822 is the use Reply-To in email distribution lists addressed?
Note that RFC2822 applies to all email, whether it is sent to a list server or not.
=== Section 3.6.2. Originator fields:
When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent. ===
I suspected (was afraid) that this particular sentence was the heart of the storm. Taken out of context, it does sound definitive.
It is up to the _author_ of the message to decide what goes in the Reply-To header. Systems which subsequently process the email, after it has been sent, are not the author, and as such are not entitled to decide what should go in the Reply-To field.
If the author wishes to put the list address in the Reply-To field (as I have here), that's fine.
Yeah, I've had to explain the same thing to several irate people who write back to me, asking "WHY ARE YOU WRITING TO ME?????" Yet another benefit of the current configuration. :)
On Monday 14 August 2006 23:08, ken wrote:
William Gallafent wrote:
On Monday 14 August 2006 09:48, ken wrote:
So then where in rfc 2822 is the use Reply-To in email distribution lists addressed?
Note that RFC2822 applies to all email, whether it is sent to a list server or not.
=== Section 3.6.2. Originator fields:
When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent. ===
I suspected (was afraid) that this particular sentence was the heart of the storm. Taken out of context, it does sound definitive.
It is up to the _author_ of the message to decide what goes in the Reply-To header. Systems which subsequently process the email, after it has been sent, are not the author, and as such are not entitled to decide what should go in the Reply-To field.
If the author wishes to put the list address in the Reply-To field (as I have here), that's fine.
Yeah, I've had to explain the same thing to several irate people who write back to me, asking "WHY ARE YOU WRITING TO ME?????" Yet another benefit of the current configuration. :)
No, I've seen comments like that about list mail. Some people just don't understand very much about email. Incidentally, RFC2822 is a "Proposed Standard", one of the first stages of the RFC standards track. It's a long way away from becoming a standard, so whether it's definitive or not is uninteresting until it makes it all the way up to a real RFC standard
On 06/08/14 17:08 (GMT-0400) ken apparently typed:
William Gallafent wrote:
On Monday 14 August 2006 09:48, ken wrote:
When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent.
I suspected (was afraid) that this particular sentence was the heart of the storm. Taken out of context, it does sound definitive.
The RFC is deficient in presuming anyone knows the meaning of "author". I really don't care who wrote the content. I only care who sent it to me. The writer of the content did not send it to me, so I really don't care what he wants or what his headers included or not. The listserv sent it to me, so as far as I'm concerned, until a distinction is made in the RFC for list mail, the listserv is the author, not the content writer. -- "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 Monday 14 August 2006 23:32, Felix Miata wrote:
The RFC is deficient in presuming anyone knows the meaning of "author". I really don't care who wrote the content. I only care who sent it to me. The writer of the content did not send it to me, so I really don't care what he wants or what his headers included or not. The listserv sent it to me, so as far as I'm concerned, until a distinction is made in the RFC for list mail, the listserv is the author, not the content writer.
Ah yes, and of course the US Post Office is the author of Time Magazine, right? A *distribution* list is the official name of what we refer to as "mailing list". It distributes email to people who say they want them (by subscribing to the distribution list). It doesn't author anything, and saying it does is not even debatable, it's just flat out wrong
On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 23:41 +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Monday 14 August 2006 23:32, Felix Miata wrote:
The RFC is deficient in presuming anyone knows the meaning of "author". I really don't care who wrote the content. I only care who sent it to me. The writer of the content did not send it to me, so I really don't care what he wants or what his headers included or not. The listserv sent it to me, so as far as I'm concerned, until a distinction is made in the RFC for list mail, the listserv is the author, not the content writer.
Ah yes, and of course the US Post Office is the author of Time Magazine, right?
A *distribution* list is the official name of what we refer to as "mailing list". It distributes email to people who say they want them (by subscribing to the distribution list). It doesn't author anything, and saying it does is not even debatable, it's just flat out wrong
I think Felix had a point. The US post office isn't the author, but neither is it the publisher. It's [just] a common carrier. Does the RFC recognize the notion of a publisher? Because that's what the list is, IMHO. I think most of the debate on this issue misses the point. That is, IMHO, that the requirements haven't been clearly analysed and consequently the solution isn't especially good! It's clear that a common carrier (ISP etc) is the wrong entity to determine the reply-to address, or anything else. It's equally clear that the author needs to be the ultimate determiner of the reply-to address. The problems come with the in-between cases. Mostly, we'd like the 'publisher' to decide the reply-to address. But are they smart enough to deal with e.g out-of-office replies? Are they smart enough to deflect spam? The fundamental problem, IMHO, is that we need a basic redesign of email delivery/routing mechanisms, including lists. Cheers, Dave
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 00:10, Dave Howorth wrote:
I think Felix had a point. The US post office isn't the author, but neither is it the publisher. It's [just] a common carrier. Does the RFC recognize the notion of a publisher? Because that's what the list is, IMHO.
It's not though. It's a distributor. Hence "distribution list" I admit that my analogy with the post office was bad, a better analogy would perhaps be with the third party subscription services that magazines like Time use to pester their subscribers with renewal offers (but also for the basic stuff, like keeping track of who has a subscription)
I think most of the debate on this issue misses the point. That is, IMHO, that the requirements haven't been clearly analysed and consequently the solution isn't especially good!
It's clear that a common carrier (ISP etc) is the wrong entity to determine the reply-to address, or anything else. It's equally clear that the author needs to be the ultimate determiner of the reply-to address.
Yes
The problems come with the in-between cases. Mostly, we'd like the 'publisher' to decide the reply-to address. But are they smart enough to deal with e.g out-of-office replies? Are they smart enough to deflect spam? The fundamental problem, IMHO, is that we need a basic redesign of email delivery/routing mechanisms, including lists.
Cheers, Dave
On 06/08/14 23:41 (GMT+0200) Anders Johansson apparently typed:
A *distribution* list is the official name of what we refer to as "mailing list". It distributes email to people who say they want them (by subscribing to the distribution list). It doesn't author anything, and saying it does is not even debatable, it's just flat out wrong
That's why the RFC needs to make a distinction between author and distributor. Most mailing list subscribers don't give a diddly who the author is or what he wants. They only want their replies by default to go back to the place they came from, the distributor, listserv, or whatever the RFC might choose to name the indispensable most direct source, as distinguished from 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/
Felix Miata wrote:
On 06/08/14 23:41 (GMT+0200) Anders Johansson apparently typed:
A *distribution* list is the official name of what we refer to as "mailing list". It distributes email to people who say they want them (by subscribing to the distribution list). It doesn't author anything, and saying it does is not even debatable, it's just flat out wrong
That's why the RFC needs to make a distinction between author and distributor. Most mailing list subscribers don't give a diddly who the author is or what he wants. They only want their replies by default to go back to the place they came from, the distributor, listserv, or whatever the RFC might choose to name the indispensable most direct source, as distinguished from author.
Felix, well put. And let me say once more, here we have... Another expression of our ongoing discussion as one between intelligent and "correct".
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 00:57, ken wrote:
Another expression of our ongoing discussion as one between intelligent and "correct".
Calling people unintelligent because they don't agree with you is not a very well liked debating technique
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 00:57, ken wrote:
Another expression of our ongoing discussion as one between intelligent and "correct".
Calling people unintelligent because they don't agree with you is not a very well liked debating technique
Your criticism is misplaced. I was referring-- not to any person-- but to the arguments offered on each side. Read the statement again. I'll say it again another way. One side is arguing that replying to the list makes more sense. The other side keeps coming back to a notion of what is "correct". To clarify a bit more.... I don't know anyone on this list personally and so not responding to persons. I'm responding to the list. (And to the discussions on this list in toto.) See?
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:28, ken wrote:
I'll say it again another way. One side is arguing that replying to the list makes more sense. The other side keeps coming back to a notion of what is "correct".
Did you read the article I linked to? I'll give you the link again http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html The argument is entirely based upon what makes sense. No one talks about being more or less "correct", that's for the debate between top and bottom posting
From: "Anders Johansson" <andjoh@rydsbo.net>
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:28, ken wrote:
I'll say it again another way. One side is arguing that replying to the list makes more sense. The other side keeps coming back to a notion of what is "correct".
Did you read the article I linked to? I'll give you the link again
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
The argument is entirely based upon what makes sense. No one talks about being more or less "correct", that's for the debate between top and bottom posting
Proof by repeated assertion never makes sense. {^_^}
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:28, ken wrote:
I'll say it again another way. One side is arguing that replying to the list makes more sense. The other side keeps coming back to a notion of what is "correct".
Did you read the article I linked to? I'll give you the link again
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
The argument is entirely based upon what makes sense. No one talks about being more or less "correct", that's for the debate between top and bottom posting
I read it, and frankly it's a load of bollocks. His argument doesn't even make sense. He says "Reply-to-all" is better, but, in fact, that would probably send the e-mail twice to the author (once direct, once through the mailing list), and possibly screw up threads if the author then replies to the e-mail he got directly from the sender, rather than over the list... But this guy sounds like he hasn't come anywhere near the 21st century. Evidence his rant about how hard it would be for him to reply only to the author: "Look at the original message header, write down the sender's email address, hit the "r" key, call up the header editing menu, erase the current To: value, and type in the sender's full email address." Apparently, the author is completely incapable of using this new-fangled invention called a "mouse", which can, apparently "select", then "copy" text. (It's only been around for a good 30 years) Not to mention that the vast majority of e-mail programs list the headers conveniently with every compose for easy editing. I use three different mail programs, depending on where I am and what I'm doing. mutt, thunderbird, and horde. Each of them behaves differently, but editing a "To:" field isn't that hard in any of them. Simply put, the vast majority of replies to messages coming from a list are meant to go back to the list. In the vast majority of cases, munging the Reply-to makes things easier and quicker for the vast majority of people. Personality, the reply-to is not a big deal to me, but I despise whiny brats that rant on about how everyone in the universe should conform to their console fetish, or how their method is somehow the most "proper" regardless of the utility to the vast majority of users. The computer is supposed to conform to me, not the other way around.
suse@rio.vg wrote:
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:28, ken wrote:
I'll say it again another way. One side is arguing that replying to the list makes more sense. The other side keeps coming back to a notion of what is "correct". Did you read the article I linked to? I'll give you the link again
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
The argument is entirely based upon what makes sense. No one talks about being more or less "correct", that's for the debate between top and bottom posting
I read it, and frankly it's a load of bollocks. His argument doesn't even make sense. He says "Reply-to-all" is better, but, in fact, that would probably send the e-mail twice to the author (once direct, once through the mailing list), and possibly screw up threads if the author then replies to the e-mail he got directly from the sender, rather than over the list...
But this guy sounds like he hasn't come anywhere near the 21st century.
This whole argument is pointless. It's like saying driving on the right or the left side of the road in different countries is "broken". It is pointless because RFCs (Requests for *Comment*) are what pass for actual internet standards. Once RFCs have been published, unless they leave wiggle-room for future developments, money, time, blood, sweat and tears get invested accordingly. That is what locks them down. More simply, it is the way it is because it would be impossible to change. Like changing the law making the Brits drive on the right. It ain't going to happen. It is too deeply embedded. But you can change the law and say its OK to put the steering wheel on whichever side of the car you want. You could put out a spec for a mail client which detects a list and automatically sends your "reply" to the list instead of the "reply-to(author)" We should save this sort of quixotic stuff for Fridays. Mike
Evidence his rant about how hard it would be for him to reply only to the author: "Look at the original message header, write down the sender's email address, hit the "r" key, call up the header editing menu, erase the current To: value, and type in the sender's full email address." Apparently, the author is completely incapable of using this new-fangled invention called a "mouse", which can, apparently "select", then "copy" text. (It's only been around for a good 30 years) Not to mention that the vast majority of e-mail programs list the headers conveniently with every compose for easy editing. I use three different mail programs, depending on where I am and what I'm doing. mutt, thunderbird, and horde. Each of them behaves differently, but editing a "To:" field isn't that hard in any of them.
Simply put, the vast majority of replies to messages coming from a list are meant to go back to the list. In the vast majority of cases, munging the Reply-to makes things easier and quicker for the vast majority of people.
Personality, the reply-to is not a big deal to me, but I despise whiny brats that rant on about how everyone in the universe should conform to their console fetish, or how their method is somehow the most "proper" regardless of the utility to the vast majority of users.
The computer is supposed to conform to me, not the other way around.
From: "Mike Dewhirst" <miked@dewhirst.com.au>
suse@rio.vg wrote:
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:28, ken wrote:
I'll say it again another way. One side is arguing that replying to the list makes more sense. The other side keeps coming back to a notion of what is "correct". Did you read the article I linked to? I'll give you the link again
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
The argument is entirely based upon what makes sense. No one talks about being more or less "correct", that's for the debate between top and bottom posting
I read it, and frankly it's a load of bollocks. His argument doesn't even make sense. He says "Reply-to-all" is better, but, in fact, that would probably send the e-mail twice to the author (once direct, once through the mailing list), and possibly screw up threads if the author then replies to the e-mail he got directly from the sender, rather than over the list...
But this guy sounds like he hasn't come anywhere near the 21st century.
This whole argument is pointless. It's like saying driving on the right or the left side of the road in different countries is "broken".
It is pointless because RFCs (Requests for *Comment*) are what pass for actual internet standards. Once RFCs have been published, unless they leave wiggle-room for future developments, money, time, blood, sweat and tears get invested accordingly. That is what locks them down.
Merely publishing an RFC does not make it an Internet Standard. Some RFCs have become Internet Standards and the IETF is a little dumb to let them remain as RFCs rather than formally making them standards. If we had to follow RFCs just because they were published you'd be speaking TCP/IP over homing pigeon relay at least some of the time. {^_^}
jdow wrote:
From: "Mike Dewhirst" <miked@dewhirst.com.au>
suse@rio.vg wrote:
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:28, ken wrote:
I'll say it again another way. One side is arguing that replying to the list makes more sense. The other side keeps coming back to a notion of what is "correct". Did you read the article I linked to? I'll give you the link again
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
The argument is entirely based upon what makes sense. No one talks about being more or less "correct", that's for the debate between top and bottom posting
I read it, and frankly it's a load of bollocks. His argument doesn't even make sense. He says "Reply-to-all" is better, but, in fact, that would probably send the e-mail twice to the author (once direct, once through the mailing list), and possibly screw up threads if the author then replies to the e-mail he got directly from the sender, rather than over the list...
But this guy sounds like he hasn't come anywhere near the 21st century.
This whole argument is pointless. It's like saying driving on the right or the left side of the road in different countries is "broken".
It is pointless because RFCs (Requests for *Comment*) are what pass for actual internet standards. Once RFCs have been published, unless they leave wiggle-room for future developments, money, time, blood, sweat and tears get invested accordingly. That is what locks them down.
Merely publishing an RFC does not make it an Internet Standard. Some
My point is that investment in software is what creates inertia and momentum on the "standards" track. You (or the net total of all desires on the suse list) cannot change that. Don't tilt at windmills :) You can change your mail client to one which does what you personally want. If you can't find one then ask others to contribute towards making one which suits your needs. That's the open source way.
RFCs have become Internet Standards and the IETF is a little dumb to let them remain as RFCs rather than formally making them standards.
The rationale is that software development drives the process. The RFC follows and tries to pick the right path to "standardising" the interfaces so we don't get the tower of babel across the wires. They remain as RFCs for a long time precisely so that ongoing software development can stick to the beaten API path for the most part but can still innovate off the path. Usually one RFC is superceded by a later one which embeds the good (in the IETF's opinion) innovations but still retains RFC status until the cows come home or no innovations occur or the entire technology is replaced.
If we had to follow RFCs just because they were published you'd be speaking TCP/IP over homing pigeon relay at least some of the time.
I think you mean "If we didn't follow RFCs ..." Mike
{^_^}
On Monday 14 August 2006 8:36 pm, Mike Dewhirst wrote:
If we had to follow RFCs just because they were published you'd be speaking TCP/IP over homing pigeon relay at least some of the time.
I think you mean "If we didn't follow RFCs ..."
Mike
No, he meant what he said, see the RFC's here... ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2549.txt ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1149.txt Scott -- Credo elvem etiam vivere POPFile, the OpenSource EMail Classifier http://popfile.sourceforge.net/ Linux 2.6.11.4-21.13-default x86_64 SuSE Linux 9.3 (x86-64)
Scott Leighton wrote:
On Monday 14 August 2006 8:36 pm, Mike Dewhirst wrote:
If we had to follow RFCs just because they were published you'd be speaking TCP/IP over homing pigeon relay at least some of the time. I think you mean "If we didn't follow RFCs ..."
Mike
No, he meant what he said, see the RFC's here...
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2549.txt ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1149.txt
FOFLOL
Scott
From: "Mike Dewhirst" <miked@dewhirst.com.au>
jdow wrote:
From: "Mike Dewhirst" <miked@dewhirst.com.au>
suse@rio.vg wrote:
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:28, ken wrote:
I'll say it again another way. One side is arguing that replying to the list makes more sense. The other side keeps coming back to a notion of what is "correct". Did you read the article I linked to? I'll give you the link again
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
The argument is entirely based upon what makes sense. No one talks about being more or less "correct", that's for the debate between top and bottom posting
I read it, and frankly it's a load of bollocks. His argument doesn't even make sense. He says "Reply-to-all" is better, but, in fact, that would probably send the e-mail twice to the author (once direct, once through the mailing list), and possibly screw up threads if the author then replies to the e-mail he got directly from the sender, rather than over the list...
But this guy sounds like he hasn't come anywhere near the 21st century.
This whole argument is pointless. It's like saying driving on the right or the left side of the road in different countries is "broken".
It is pointless because RFCs (Requests for *Comment*) are what pass for actual internet standards. Once RFCs have been published, unless they leave wiggle-room for future developments, money, time, blood, sweat and tears get invested accordingly. That is what locks them down.
Merely publishing an RFC does not make it an Internet Standard. Some
My point is that investment in software is what creates inertia and momentum on the "standards" track. You (or the net total of all desires on the suse list) cannot change that. Don't tilt at windmills :)
You can change your mail client to one which does what you personally want. If you can't find one then ask others to contribute towards making one which suits your needs. That's the open source way.
RFCs have become Internet Standards and the IETF is a little dumb to let them remain as RFCs rather than formally making them standards.
The rationale is that software development drives the process. The RFC follows and tries to pick the right path to "standardising" the interfaces so we don't get the tower of babel across the wires. They remain as RFCs for a long time precisely so that ongoing software development can stick to the beaten API path for the most part but can still innovate off the path. Usually one RFC is superceded by a later one which embeds the good (in the IETF's opinion) innovations but still retains RFC status until the cows come home or no innovations occur or the entire technology is replaced.
If we had to follow RFCs just because they were published you'd be speaking TCP/IP over homing pigeon relay at least some of the time.
I think you mean "If we didn't follow RFCs ..."
No sir. There was an RFC for IP over carrier pigeon written. Had the RFCs been considered compulsory then that document would have had to be taken seriously and the technology developed, stalling all sorts of interesting things like "the web". {^_-}
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 14:11, jdow wrote:
No sir. There was an RFC for IP over carrier pigeon written. Had the RFCs been considered compulsory then that document would have had to be taken seriously and the technology developed, stalling all sorts of interesting things like "the web".
Well, just because someone publishes a standard, even if it becomes officially adopted by ANSI/ISO/Whatever, that doesn't mean anyone is actually forced to implement it. All it means is that if you ever implement TCPoP (Transmission Control Protocol over Pigeon), and want to call yourself standards compliant, you have to abide by that standard
From: <suse@rio.vg>
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:28, ken wrote:
I'll say it again another way. One side is arguing that replying to the list makes more sense. The other side keeps coming back to a notion of what is "correct".
Did you read the article I linked to? I'll give you the link again
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
The argument is entirely based upon what makes sense. No one talks about being more or less "correct", that's for the debate between top and bottom posting
I read it, and frankly it's a load of bollocks. His argument doesn't even make sense. He says "Reply-to-all" is better, but, in fact, that would probably send the e-mail twice to the author (once direct, once through the mailing list), and possibly screw up threads if the author then replies to the e-mail he got directly from the sender, rather than over the list...
In point of fact this nails me quite often. The direct email usually comes before the indirect. And a simply reply, which I presume should send email to the list rather than the author, ends up going to the author. Dual Reply-to: is more evil than always sending to either one or the other possible destination. It breaks up conversational flow.
But this guy sounds like he hasn't come anywhere near the 21st century. Evidence his rant about how hard it would be for him to reply only to the author: "Look at the original message header, write down the sender's email address, hit the "r" key, call up the header editing menu, erase the current To: value, and type in the sender's full email address." Apparently, the author is completely incapable of using this new-fangled invention called a "mouse", which can, apparently "select", then "copy" text. (It's only been around for a good 30 years) Not to mention that the vast majority of e-mail programs list the headers conveniently with every compose for easy editing. I use three different mail programs, depending on where I am and what I'm doing. mutt, thunderbird, and horde. Each of them behaves differently, but editing a "To:" field isn't that hard in any of them.
Hey, if he wants to be stupid and do it the hard way let him. I encourage it. That way his stupidity might not spread to widely. Or maybe he's afraid of sharp objects so he eschews "cut" and paste.
Simply put, the vast majority of replies to messages coming from a list are meant to go back to the list. In the vast majority of cases, munging the Reply-to makes things easier and quicker for the vast majority of people.
Perzactly. Of course, we're in an rwar here so brains are turned off just like they are in other religious debates - like politics. {^_-}
Mon, 14 Aug 2006, by suse@rio.vg: [..]
Simply put, the vast majority of replies to messages coming from a list are meant to go back to the list. In the vast majority of cases, munging the Reply-to makes things easier and quicker for the vast majority of people.
Being voted for by a majority doesn't automatically make it the "right way".
Personality, the reply-to is not a big deal to me, but I despise whiny brats that rant on about how everyone in the universe should conform to their console fetish, or how their method is somehow the most "proper" regardless of the utility to the vast majority of users.
So, what's next then, the majority thinks that this threading thing is only getting in the way of how "easy" it is to abuse an ongoing discussion to post a new mail, so they'll vote it to be ignored in future? Next, no more CLI questions or advice allowed, because that's just too fucking difficult and intimidating? Then what, HTML and blinking smiley's in all posts? Why don't we just start an MSN group right away, so all fucking nitwits can effordlessly and thoughtlessly do whatever they're used to in chat channels?
The computer is supposed to conform to me, not the other way around.
You're suppost to be in control of devices you use, not being controlled by them. Theo -- Theo v. Werkhoven Registered Linux user# 99872 http://counter.li.org ICBM 52 13 26N , 4 29 47E. + ICQ: 277217131 SUSE 9.2 + Jabber: muadib@jabber.xs4all.nl Kernel 2.6.8 + See headers for PGP/GPG info. Claimer: any email I receive will become my property. Disclaimers do not apply.
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 16:48, Theo v. Werkhoven wrote:
Why don't we just start an MSN group right away, so all fucking nitwits can effordlessly and thoughtlessly do whatever they're used to in chat channels?
Why don't (all) you people take this to the OT list so that this list can get back to Linux. It seems you've lost the meaning of 'etiquette'.
Theo v. Werkhoven wrote:
Mon, 14 Aug 2006, by suse@rio.vg: [..]
Simply put, the vast majority of replies to messages coming from a list are meant to go back to the list. In the vast majority of cases, munging the Reply-to makes things easier and quicker for the vast majority of people.
Being voted for by a majority doesn't automatically make it the "right way".
Who said anything about voting? The point is utility. The "right way" is the way that provides the most utility to the most people at that moment. We must always guard against the fear of change.
So, what's next then, the majority thinks that this threading thing is only getting in the way of how "easy" it is to abuse an ongoing discussion to post a new mail, so they'll vote it to be ignored in future?
I would suspect that the vast majority of people are using mail clients that properly thread mail. Therefore, it provides utility. If, in the future, there's a new way of reading mail that at the moment I cannot conceive of, perhaps then it should be eliminated. Until that point, I say we stick with what works for the vast majority of users.
Next, no more CLI questions or advice allowed, because that's just too fucking difficult and intimidating? Then what, HTML and blinking smiley's in all posts?
Difficult and intimidating? Bwhahahahahaha! You completely misunderstand me. I'm not against command lines. I run servers for a living, nearly all the work I do on them is command line. What I despise is the proposition that everything should be limited to the console. I'm talking about people who believe X is an impurity and a mouse is only for macs. The type of person that believes anyone who doesn't do things their archaic way is automatically doing it wrong and their way is always right because that's the way they did it in 1985. The world has moved on. There are new factors and other input to be considered. The point is to use whatever is best for your users.
Why don't we just start an MSN group right away, so all fucking nitwits can effordlessly and thoughtlessly do whatever they're used to in chat channels?
I wouldn't know anything about that. I've never seen an MSN group. If you're more comfortable there, I'm sure they can accommodate you..
The computer is supposed to conform to me, not the other way around.
You're suppost to be in control of devices you use, not being controlled by them.
Precisely. But the fellow who wrote that article believes the opposite. He believes that everyone else needs to conform to how his computer works, as he has done. That sort of mindset is something that must be challenged at all turns. If we listen to these people, technology will never move forward, but instead be stuck at whatever arbitrary point where they conformed themselves to the system.
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 00:12, Felix Miata wrote:
On 06/08/14 23:41 (GMT+0200) Anders Johansson apparently typed:
A *distribution* list is the official name of what we refer to as "mailing list". It distributes email to people who say they want them (by subscribing to the distribution list). It doesn't author anything, and saying it does is not even debatable, it's just flat out wrong
That's why the RFC needs to make a distinction between author and distributor. Most mailing list subscribers don't give a diddly who the author is or what he wants. They only want their replies by default to go back to the place they came from,
Right up to the point at which they inadvertently spread private information all over the internet because they forgot that pressing "reply" sent it to everyone Please read http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 00:12, Felix Miata wrote:
On 06/08/14 23:41 (GMT+0200) Anders Johansson apparently typed:
A *distribution* list is the official name of what we refer to as "mailing list". It distributes email to people who say they want them (by subscribing to the distribution list). It doesn't author anything, and saying it does is not even debatable, it's just flat out wrong That's why the RFC needs to make a distinction between author and distributor. Most mailing list subscribers don't give a diddly who the author is or what he wants. They only want their replies by default to go back to the place they came from,
Right up to the point at which they inadvertently spread private information all over the internet because they forgot that pressing "reply" sent it to everyone
....
By this logic, we shouldn't have computers at all... somebody might make a mistake!! :0
* ken <gebser@speakeasy.net> [08-14-06 19:21]:
By this logic, we shouldn't have computers at all... somebody might make a mistake!! :0
A person who lacks that much control shouldn't. -- 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 06/08/14 19:13 (GMT-0400) Anders Johansson apparently typed:
Please read http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Please read: http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2006-08/msg00170.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2006-08/msg00177.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2005/12/msg01865.html http://archivist.incutio.com/viewlist/css-discuss/77038 -- "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/
From: "Anders Johansson" <andjoh@rydsbo.net>
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 00:12, Felix Miata wrote:
On 06/08/14 23:41 (GMT+0200) Anders Johansson apparently typed:
A *distribution* list is the official name of what we refer to as "mailing list". It distributes email to people who say they want them (by subscribing to the distribution list). It doesn't author anything, and saying it does is not even debatable, it's just flat out wrong
That's why the RFC needs to make a distinction between author and distributor. Most mailing list subscribers don't give a diddly who the author is or what he wants. They only want their replies by default to go back to the place they came from,
Right up to the point at which they inadvertently spread private information all over the internet because they forgot that pressing "reply" sent it to everyone
Please read
Inconsistent behavior is the real bad thing. And the above link is spurious - once you get used to handling a list one way on all emails you're just as likely to make the "default" mistake pressing alt-meta-cokebottle-L to send to the list as it is to simply hit reply. {^_^} Joanne - has made BOTH mistakes.
From: "Anders Johansson" <andjoh@rydsbo.net>
On Monday 14 August 2006 23:32, Felix Miata wrote:
The RFC is deficient in presuming anyone knows the meaning of "author". I really don't care who wrote the content. I only care who sent it to me. The writer of the content did not send it to me, so I really don't care what he wants or what his headers included or not. The listserv sent it to me, so as far as I'm concerned, until a distinction is made in the RFC for list mail, the listserv is the author, not the content writer.
Ah yes, and of course the US Post Office is the author of Time Magazine, right?
A *distribution* list is the official name of what we refer to as "mailing list". It distributes email to people who say they want them (by subscribing to the distribution list). It doesn't author anything, and saying it does is not even debatable, it's just flat out wrong
The USPS is a conduit. It is not a remailer service. If you send a letter to Jill via USPS she gets it and nobody else gets copies. If, then, Jill collates the contents of your letter with a collection of other letters, makes as many copies as there were contributors and mails out the collection the usual usage for such Amateur Press Association operations is that replies go back to Jill and are collated into the next distribution or "distie". This is a very common newsletter technique. This group fits that sort of definition. You send one note to the list. The LIST sends out several copies of your note. Generally the list benefits if answers go to the list rather than to the original sender. Therefore I feel the DEFAULT action should be to email the list with extra action required to move into private email. Otherwise, why bother to have a list? {^_^} Joanne
jdow wrote:
The LIST sends out several copies of your note. Generally the list benefits if answers go to the list rather than to the original sender. Therefore I feel the DEFAULT action should be to email the list with extra action required to move into private email. Otherwise, why bother to have a list?
Completely agree - and a lot more lists that I use work that way than work the 'default' way this list works. So I often forget and have to resend a comment again :( Just like I was about to do ..... <gr> -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/ Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc. - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:02, jdow wrote:
You send one note to the list. The LIST sends out several copies of your note. Generally the list benefits if answers go to the list rather than to the original sender. Therefore I feel the DEFAULT action should be to email the list with extra action required to move into private email. Otherwise, why bother to have a list?
Exactly. Hence the list family of headers of RFC2369, which facilitate this. I think that the RFC2822 is only deficient with respect to list handling in as much as it doesn't talk about it at all (which is fine, it's not necessary there). RFC2369, on the other hand, describes headers which provide all the necessary additional information for a client to implement exactly what you suggest, without munging messages to give the impression that the author had a certain intention, when in fact that intention was of the list administrator. So, in the situation that the list conforms with RFC2822 and RFC2369, and the client also conforms with RFC2822 and RFC2369, everything works exactly as you suggest (my client is configured (by default) so that when I press "R", meaning "Reply", to a list message, the reply is addressed to the list). The list sets List-Post, and the client is configured to send replies to list messages to the list. Incidentally, the extra action you mention is simply an alternative action - "Reply to Author" instead of "Reply". That's exactly the action which is broken if the list sets the Reply-To header. Lucky the list doesn't alter the Reply-To header, or I wouldn't have been able to divert this conversation to the off-topic list (to which I do not subscribe ;)
From: "William Gallafent" <william@gallaf.net>
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:02, jdow wrote:
You send one note to the list. The LIST sends out several copies of your note. Generally the list benefits if answers go to the list rather than to the original sender. Therefore I feel the DEFAULT action should be to email the list with extra action required to move into private email. Otherwise, why bother to have a list?
Exactly. Hence the list family of headers of RFC2369, which facilitate this.
I think that the RFC2822 is only deficient with respect to list handling in as much as it doesn't talk about it at all (which is fine, it's not necessary there). RFC2369, on the other hand, describes headers which provide all the necessary additional information for a client to implement exactly what you suggest, without munging messages to give the impression that the author had a certain intention, when in fact that intention was of the list administrator.
Remember that carrier pigeons have a higher RFC number, today, than your precious 2369. Default behavior has been to use the Reply-to header if it is present falling back on the From header. Making a change in the default behavior is bad. And making the default behavior different than users expect is bad. Hence presuming that the List- headers in 2369 mean they are to be used in place of Reply-to is a little ingenuous to say the least.
So, in the situation that the list conforms with RFC2822 and RFC2369, and the client also conforms with RFC2822 and RFC2369, everything works exactly as you suggest (my client is configured (by default) so that when I press "R", meaning "Reply", to a list message, the reply is addressed to the list). The list sets List-Post, and the client is configured to send replies to list messages to the list.
Incidentally, the extra action you mention is simply an alternative action - "Reply to Author" instead of "Reply". That's exactly the action which is broken if the list sets the Reply-To header.
No - that violates the principle of "least surprise." It is bad UI design.
Lucky the list doesn't alter the Reply-To header, or I wouldn't have been able to divert this conversation to the off-topic list (to which I do not subscribe ;)
Didn't work. I rewrite the headers on the way in. {^,-} Joanne
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 13:16, jdow wrote:
Remember that carrier pigeons have a higher RFC number, today, than your precious 2369.
If I want to send internet packets on a pigeon, I'm going to use that approach rather than inventing a new one of my own, for sure. Why go to all the trouble of reinventing the wheel (or in this case, the bird)? Similarly, since there are several published and well known descriptions of how to formulate internet messages, including details of extra header information
Default behavior has been to use the Reply-to header if it is present falling back on the From header.
For the "Reply-to-Author" pattern, yes. "Reply-to-List" should clearly do something else, and a generic "Reply" function should do what the user configures it to do.
Making a change in the default behavior is bad. And making the default behavior different than users expect is bad. Hence presuming that the List- headers in 2369 mean they are to be used in place of Reply-to is a little ingenuous to say the least.
Disingenuous? Nowhere did I suggest that List-Post should be used to _override_ Reply-To, only that using Reply-To _instead_ of List-Post to transmit information inserted by the list server is inappropriate. If a list message arrives for me which contains a Reply-To header, and I press reply, then my reply is addressed to the Reply-To address, as you would expect. If Reply-To is absent, it is addressed to the List-Post address, if it came from a list which correctly sets the RFC2369 list headers (I could turn this off, but it is exactly the ideal list-reply behaviour users of nonconformant clients perform workarounds to achieve). Otherwise, it is addressed to the From address.
So, in the situation that the list conforms with RFC2822 and RFC2369, and the client also conforms with RFC2822 and RFC2369, everything works exactly as you suggest (my client is configured (by default) so that when I press "R", meaning "Reply", to a list message, the reply is addressed to the list). The list sets List-Post, and the client is configured to send replies to list messages to the list.
Incidentally, the extra action you mention is simply an alternative action - "Reply to Author" instead of "Reply". That's exactly the action which is broken if the list sets the Reply-To header.
No - that violates the principle of "least surprise." It is bad UI design.
You've lost me here - which part violates that principle? (or, to put it another way, what is the "least surprising" behaviour for a "Reply-To-Author" command, and that for a generic "Reply" command, variously in the presence or absence of Reply-To and the various list headers, in particular List-Post?) I have various options when I reply to any message, all of which do what they claim to do (unless a header which is supposed to contain information about the author has been misused, and in fact contains information about a list server, for example). My standard "Reply" command honours Reply-To, if present, and also uses List-Post to facilitate sending replies to list messages to the list in the absence of a Reply-To header. If I wish to perform one of the less common paths, this is easy too - "Reply-to-List" allows me to send to the list address even if Reply-To was set, "Reply-to-Author" allows me to email the author directly at his Reply-To (if present) or From address, and "Reply-to-All" (probably From, Reply-To, To, can't remember since I rarely use this one) are straightforwardly available. It does this without any even vaguely controversial use of any message header, by using the published specifications of a proposed standard way to do this, which seem to work very well.
Lucky the list doesn't alter the Reply-To header, or I wouldn't have been able to divert this conversation to the off-topic list (to which I do not subscribe ;)
Didn't work. I rewrite the headers on the way in.
So you effectively always ignore the Reply-To header, on any email from the list? Well, that's your loss I suppose.
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 17:15, Jos van Kan wrote:
jdow schreef:
Didn't work. I rewrite the headers on the way in.
{^,-} Joanne
What happened to your left eye? Somebody hit you?
The list is totally inflexible. It's free and it works. If you want support then why not pay for a Novell solution. Same software, same reliability. Different price. Lynn.
From: "Jos van Kan" <vankan@kabelfoon.nl>
jdow schreef:
Didn't work. I rewrite the headers on the way in.
{^,-} Joanne
What happened to your left eye? Somebody hit you?
Just winking and sticking my tongue out at the same time. {^_-}
William Gallafent wrote:
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:02, jdow wrote:
You send one note to the list. The LIST sends out several copies of your note. Generally the list benefits if answers go to the list rather than to the original sender. Therefore I feel the DEFAULT action should be to email the list with extra action required to move into private email. Otherwise, why bother to have a list?
....
Lucky the list doesn't alter the Reply-To header, or I wouldn't have been able to divert this conversation to the off-topic list (to which I do not subscribe ;)
So it's okay for someone to put in a Reply-To of, say, ogre@homelandsecurity.gov and this listserver will diligently pass that through to all of us, so that anyone not carefully watching the headers might send an email there. Nice feature!
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 15:54, ken wrote:
So it's okay for someone to put in a Reply-To of, say, ogre@homelandsecurity.gov and this listserver will diligently pass that through to all of us, so that anyone not carefully watching the headers might send an email there. Nice feature!
It's only OK for the originator of the message to do this, not just anybody! ... but yes, if you don't look at the recipient fields of the message you're about to send before you send it, this sort of thing might happen. Even worse, if you don't check the recipient fields, you might send a private reply to a poster to the list, rather than to the list itself ;)
William Gallafent wrote:
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 15:54, ken wrote:
So it's okay for someone to put in a Reply-To of, say, ogre@homelandsecurity.gov and this listserver will diligently pass that through to all of us, so that anyone not carefully watching the headers might send an email there. Nice feature!
It's only OK for the originator of the message to do this, not just anybody!
And this makes a relevant difference how?
... but yes, if you don't look at the recipient fields of the message you're about to send before you send it, this sort of thing might happen.
Even worse, if you don't check the recipient fields, you might send a private reply to a poster to the list, rather than to the list itself ;)
You might be overlooking the gravity of this "feature". Do you really think we should expect that everyone will examine carefully the headers of every they send? E.g., Should the list server do nothing with this added to an email: Reply-To: suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com ... or any number of others anyone might dream up?
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 16:40, ken wrote:
William Gallafent wrote: [re Reply-To could be set to any email address!]
It's only OK for the originator of the message to do this, not just anybody!
And this makes a relevant difference how?
It doesn't make any difference to the problem of a user sending an email to an unexpected address by mistake ...
You might be overlooking the gravity of this "feature". Do you really think we should expect that everyone will examine carefully the headers of every they send?
No, I don't think we should expect that, sadly. It would be nice if we could. Asking a user to examine (and modify, if appropriate) the recipient addresses of an email about to be sent doesn't seem much to ask. If one has taken the time to write a message, one might as well take the time to decide who it will be sent to. Fortunately, it is only that user who is disadvantaged by his or her own carelessness. An MUA feature to warn if a reply is going to an address other than the "From:" of the incoming email (and perhaps even presents the user with a choice from a list when "Reply" is pressed) would be useful in this context, and probably exists in some MUAs. Still, when I'm composing an email, the recipients are listed very clearly at the top of the window, so it's not difficult to sanity-check them before sending. Mischeivous or malicious use of the Reply-To header, to "trick" people replying to a message in the way you suggest, will only affect incompetent users.
E.g., Should the list server do nothing with this added to an email: Reply-To: suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com ... or any number of others anyone might dream up?
The list server should indeed do nothing in this case. It is up to the author of a message to decide what goes in the Reply-To header of that message. It is also up to the author of a message to decide what goes in the recipient headers of that message. If the author's email client has put a recipient in that the author considers inappropriate, the author should remove that recipient before sending the message.
On Monday 14 August 2006 00:23, ken wrote:
John Andersen wrote:
On Saturday 12 August 2006 15:02, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 10:52 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Saturday 12 August 2006 03:46, James Knott wrote:
In many e-mail programs, you can right click on the "From:" address and create a new message to that address or copy it. I've added this list to my address book and created a short nickname, so that I can easily create a new message.
Now, if they'd only fix the "Reply to:" problem. ;-)
That too is easily fixed with proper mailer, rather than a web browser masquerading as a mailer.
Kmail makes list replies as easy as hitting the letter L, without the list havint to violate rfc2822.
Where is this subject-- that of the "proper" reply to a mailing list-- addressed in rfc 2822?
Also easily done in Evolution. <ctrl>L for list R for the person. assuming the list is handling headers correctly. Some need a reply to all and the list comes in the CC line hot the To:. Luckly those are few.
Kmail has one of those brain-dead regions as well. If you hit L (to reply to the list) out of habit but the message did not actually come from a list it is too dumb to substitute the sender address, and you end up with a message set up with NO adressee... What's up with that?
Doesn't it seem a bit ludicrous to have a rule which everyone is obligated to break by finding a work-around or by switching to a different (a so-called "proper") email client or by fixing it manually with every email sent? The rationale for this rule seems to be, "What server configuration can be set in order to inconvenience as many people as possible?"
Not to worry though. This topic will probably die off in twenty or thirty years. Maybe not... but probably.
-- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 04:23 -0400, ken wrote:
Doesn't it seem a bit ludicrous to have a rule which everyone is obligated to break by finding a work-around or by switching to a different (a so-called "proper") email client or by fixing it manually with every email sent? The rationale for this rule seems to be, "What server configuration can be set in order to inconvenience as many people as possible?"
Not to worry though. This topic will probably die off in twenty or thirty years. Maybe not... but probably.
I agree the only people entitled to make problems for consumers are bureaucrats and monopolys. I guess that means government and Microcoft have and will continue to enjoy kinship. We should do better but perhaps there are reasons for MUA behaving as they do. At least we have a choice in linux. BTW for those in M$ there is a port to evolution. -- ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ | | | | [__ | | | |___ |_|_| ___] | \/
On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 20:47 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Saturday 12 August 2006 15:02, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
Also easily done in Evolution. <ctrl>L for list R for the person. assuming the list is handling headers correctly. Some need a reply to all and the list comes in the CC line hot the To:. Luckly those are few.
Kmail has one of those brain-dead regions as well. If you hit L (to reply to the list) out of habit but the message did not actually come from a list it is too dumb to substitute the sender address, and you end up with a message set up with NO adressee... What's up with that?
Needs more review of source. Perhaps its time you converted to Evolution. As I remember both use mcop if not someone probabily has a perl script to make the change. -- ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ | | | | [__ | | | |___ |_|_| ___] | \/
participants (27)
-
Alex Hayes -
Anders Johansson -
Anders Johansson -
Basil Chupin -
Bruce Marshall -
Carl William Spitzer IV -
Dave Howorth -
Felix Miata -
James Knott -
jdow -
John Andersen -
Jos van Kan -
ken -
Kenneth Aar, Grafikern.no -
Leendert Meyer -
Lester Caine -
Mike Dewhirst -
Patrick Shanahan -
Primm -
Randall R Schulz -
Rob Unsworth -
Robert Smits -
Scott Leighton -
suse＠rio.vg -
Theo v. Werkhoven -
Wade Jones -
William Gallafent