[gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[drobbins]

Hiya,

I just configured mailman to "munge" all mailing list messages so that your
reply will automatically go to the list.  This is the way the vast majority of
mailing lists work, so I switched ours over for consistency.  I also bounced a
number of my personal replies back to the mailing list so that everyone can
read them :)

Make a mental note: if you want to send a personal message, copy down the
person's email and compose a new message.  If you simply choose "reply", your
reply goes to the entire list.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

[gentoo-dev] Reply-To Munging

[Chad M. Huneycutt]

It looks like the decision on whether or not to stop reply-to munging has 
fallen to me.  After a little debate, I have decided to leave the mailing 
lists as they are.

First, I would ask that everyone read the excellent articles at the 
following URLs:

http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml

They pretty well cover the pros & cons of reply-to munging.  I find the 
latter article much more compelling, but maybe that is b/c I like the 
system how it is already.  I would like to add one more point. I personally 
do not use the "group reply" function on MUA's unless I really need to.  I 
don't want to even risk getting into the habit of hitting that and 
accidentally mass-mailing a personal mail.  You might notice that this is 
very similar to an argument made in the first article above.  My response 
is that it is very unlikely that I will be mailing information of a 
personal nature in response to a mailing list posting.

For those that want people to use a different address than their From: 
address, I suggest you put it in your signature.

Feel free to respond to this, and if I feel that an overwhelming number of 
you really would prefer to do away with Reply-to munging, then I will do it.

One other thing that I will consider.  If a particular mailing list feels 
that reply-to munging is not necessarily, we could remove it just for that 
group.


Chad Huneycutt (chadh@gentoo.org)

[gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 420 bytes --]


Hi all,

It appears that recently the mailing list server has enabled reply to 
munging. From previous discussions (about 2 years ago) it was decided not 
to do this reply to munging. What I want to ask is do we want to 
reconsider this decision, or do we want the reply-to munging be disabled 
again?

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Andrea Barisani]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:54:35AM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> It appears that recently the mailing list server has enabled reply to 
> munging. From previous discussions (about 2 years ago) it was decided not 
> to do this reply to munging. What I want to ask is do we want to 
> reconsider this decision, or do we want the reply-to munging be disabled 
> again?

The reply-to was set in almost all mailing lists with the old server. During
the migration I kept the Reply-To for all lists, I didn't notice that
gentoo-dev wasn't using it.

I agree that reply-to munging is a bad idea and I tried removing it from
gentoo-user receiving a lot of flames because of that, see also this bug for
something related about this topic:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82887

I'm prefectly happy with removing our reply-to header (and leaving
user_defined one if any) if the userbase of this ml is happy to deal without
it.

Cheers


-- 
Andrea Barisani <lcars@gentoo.org>                            .*.
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Developer                          V
                                                             (   )
GPG-Key 0x864C9B9E http://dev.gentoo.org/~lcars/pubkey.asc   (   )
    0A76 074A 02CD E989 CE7F AC3F DA47 578E 864C 9B9E        ^^_^^
      "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Georgi Georgiev]

maillog: 14/04/2005-11:01:19(+0200): Andrea Barisani types
> I'm prefectly happy with removing our reply-to header (and leaving
> user_defined one if any) if the userbase of this ml is happy to deal without
> it.

Are you gonna start a poll on the forums?

-- 
()   Georgi Georgiev   () If it has syntax, it isn't user friendly.    ()
()    chutz@gg3.net    ()                                              ()
()  +81(90)2877-8845   ()                                              ()
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Andrea Barisani]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:06:18PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 14/04/2005-11:01:19(+0200): Andrea Barisani types
> > I'm prefectly happy with removing our reply-to header (and leaving
> > user_defined one if any) if the userbase of this ml is happy to deal without
> > it.
> 
> Are you gonna start a poll on the forums?
>

Starting a poll on *forums* about a *ml*, no thanks :). Hope you were being
sarcastic. I'm open to suggestions other than the "remove the header and let the
flames come" option which unfortunately looks like the only one to me and
despite being "right" in many regards I fear it will cause the havoc that
we've experienced on gentoo-user.

-- 
Andrea Barisani <lcars@gentoo.org>                            .*.
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Developer                          V
                                                             (   )
GPG-Key 0x864C9B9E http://dev.gentoo.org/~lcars/pubkey.asc   (   )
    0A76 074A 02CD E989 CE7F AC3F DA47 578E 864C 9B9E        ^^_^^
      "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1323 bytes --]

On Thursday 14 April 2005 11:01, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:54:35AM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It appears that recently the mailing list server has enabled reply to
> > munging. From previous discussions (about 2 years ago) it was decided
> > not to do this reply to munging. What I want to ask is do we want to
> > reconsider this decision, or do we want the reply-to munging be
> > disabled again?
>
> The reply-to was set in almost all mailing lists with the old server.
> During the migration I kept the Reply-To for all lists, I didn't notice
> that gentoo-dev wasn't using it.
>
> I agree that reply-to munging is a bad idea and I tried removing it
> from gentoo-user receiving a lot of flames because of that, see also
> this bug for something related about this topic:
>
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82887
>
> I'm prefectly happy with removing our reply-to header (and leaving
> user_defined one if any) if the userbase of this ml is happy to deal
> without it.

It also changed for the many smaller lists like -core, -nfp, -trustees, 
(basically all). Perhaps it could be changed such that only -user has the 
munging.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 635 bytes --]

On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 18:06 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 14/04/2005-11:01:19(+0200): Andrea Barisani types
> > I'm prefectly happy with removing our reply-to header (and leaving
> > user_defined one if any) if the userbase of this ml is happy to deal without
> > it.
> 
> Are you gonna start a poll on the forums?
*BANG*


oops, sorry.  Lots of us don't use forums or other web-based half-uis
that do not support content delivery and control in local and orderly
fashion :)


//Spider
-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1173 bytes --]

On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 11:11 +0200, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:06:18PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> > maillog: 14/04/2005-11:01:19(+0200): Andrea Barisani types
> > > I'm prefectly happy with removing our reply-to header (and leaving
> > > user_defined one if any) if the userbase of this ml is happy to deal without
> > > it.
> > 
> > Are you gonna start a poll on the forums?
> >
> 
> Starting a poll on *forums* about a *ml*, no thanks :). Hope you were being
> sarcastic. I'm open to suggestions other than the "remove the header and let the
> flames come" option which unfortunately looks like the only one to me and
> despite being "right" in many regards I fear it will cause the havoc that
> we've experienced on gentoo-user.

I vote for removing them.  As stated in the bug, it is really annoying
to have to copy and paste the sender's address when you want to reply to
only them.  This applies to -core, too.

Personally, I think they should either be unset by the list software,
or, if possible, stripped.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Graham Murray]

Andrea Barisani <lcars@gentoo.org> writes:

> Starting a poll on *forums* about a *ml*, no thanks :). Hope you were being
> sarcastic. I'm open to suggestions other than the "remove the header and let the
> flames come" option which unfortunately looks like the only one to me and
> despite being "right" in many regards I fear it will cause the havoc that
> we've experienced on gentoo-user.

One problem with that approach is that someone who does not like the
change is far more likely to send a 'complaint' than someone who likes
the change is to send a 'thank you'. I suspect that such flaming often
comes from a vocal minority and does not represent the views of the
majority of list members. 
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 620 bytes --]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:11:10 +0200 Andrea Barisani <lcars@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Starting a poll on *forums* about a *ml*, no thanks :). Hope you were
| being sarcastic. I'm open to suggestions other than the "remove the
| header and let the flames come" option which unfortunately looks like
| the only one to me and despite being "right" in many regards I fear it
| will cause the havoc that we've experienced on gentoo-user.

Ignore gentoo-user.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Ming Zhao]

-- 
Ming Zhao.
E-mail: ming at gentoo dot org
key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x92914A48
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Stuart Longland]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1051 bytes --]

Ming Zhao wrote:

Heh, well put ;-)  Couldn't have said it better myself. :-P

*getting back ontopic*

At the moment, I'm used to just clicking the Reply button to send to the
list... however, on most lists that I participate in, Reply-To is left
alone, so I'm normally in the habit of clicking Reply-To-All.  Seeing as
I normally have to consciously think *click Reply, not RTA*, I for one
certainly won't miss not having Reply-to-All.

If anyone's inconvenienced though, I'm sure I can dig up some procmail
recipes (and similar scripts) to remedy the situation, as we had the
same issue on the Humbug[1] mailing lists some time back.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Stuart Longland -oOo- http://stuartl.longlandclan.hopto.org |
| Atomic Linux Project     -oOo-    http://atomicl.berlios.de |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
| I haven't lost my mind - it's backed up on a tape somewhere |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
1. http://www.humbug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1217 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 00:15 +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> At the moment, I'm used to just clicking the Reply button to send to the
> list... however, on most lists that I participate in, Reply-To is left
> alone, so I'm normally in the habit of clicking Reply-To-All.  Seeing as
> I normally have to consciously think *click Reply, not RTA*, I for one
> certainly won't miss not having Reply-to-All.

Reply-to-All is evil.  You should be using Reply-to-List.  I know that I
sure don't need to get the same email both on and off-list.  Off-list
emails should be reserved only for when you explicitly do not want to
send to the list and only to the original email's author.

It is bad enough that we have so many different mail clients that all
behave differently.  It gets a tad old deleting multiple emails that are
identical.  This is even worse, as using procmail recipes to match on
the message ID generally ends up dumping list mail in my personal
mailbox.

Why can't mailers just show a nice little Reply-to-List button when it
sees that you're reading an email from a mailing list?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 775 bytes --]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:23:19 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
| Reply-to-All is evil.  You should be using Reply-to-List.  I know that
| I sure don't need to get the same email both on and off-list. 
| Off-list emails should be reserved only for when you explicitly do not
| want to send to the list and only to the original email's author.

Try that on any of the technical lists (any of the kernel or debian
lists, for example) and you'll get screamed at -- there you're expected
to send to the poster and Cc: the list. But then, those lists don't
require subscriptions to post.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Donnie Berkholz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 00:15 +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> 
>>At the moment, I'm used to just clicking the Reply button to send to the
>>list... however, on most lists that I participate in, Reply-To is left
>>alone, so I'm normally in the habit of clicking Reply-To-All.  Seeing as
>>I normally have to consciously think *click Reply, not RTA*, I for one
>>certainly won't miss not having Reply-to-All.
> 
> 
> Reply-to-All is evil.  You should be using Reply-to-List.  I know that I
> sure don't need to get the same email both on and off-list.  Off-list
> emails should be reserved only for when you explicitly do not want to
> send to the list and only to the original email's author.

Reply to List hasn't even worked properly for me since switching to the
new server or whatever. It duplicates to @gentoo.org and
@lists.gentoo.org. I'd guess this has something to do with people
sending to @gentoo.org when the list thinks it's @lists.gentoo.org, and
it never gets things figured out.

Thanks,
Donnie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCXps7XVaO67S1rtsRAoTRAKDte39aKkITWY+E0hSjrK0sxYcCmgCg9Vml
Iqn9xw0L6ebWpKk8rT2y/1o=
=W0gr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Drake Wyrm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1181 bytes --]

At 2005-04-14T09:32:59-0700, Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org>
wrote:
> Reply to List hasn't even worked properly for me since switching to
> the new server or whatever. It duplicates to @gentoo.org and
> @lists.gentoo.org. I'd guess this has something to do with people
> sending to @gentoo.org when the list thinks it's @lists.gentoo.org,
> and it never gets things figured out.

I noticed that. It took me a couple of double-postings before I fixed it
on my end with a procmail recipe. Pardon the strangely-wrapped line. I
figure most of you can figure it out.

      39 :0
      40 * ^list-id:.*gentoo
      41 {
      42 
      43 # fix the problem where mailing list emails
      44 # get sent to several equivalent addresses
      45 # requires GNU sed
      46 :0hf
      47 |sed -re '/^((mail-followup-|reply-)?to|from|cc|list-post): /I s/@(li
         sts|robin)\.gentoo\.org/@gentoo.org/g'
      48 
      49 INCLUDERC=$HOME/.procmail.d/gentoo-lists.procmailrc
      50 
      51 }

-- 
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"?
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action.
  --Ghost in the Shell

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 548 bytes --]

On Thursday 14 April 2005 18:32, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Reply to List hasn't even worked properly for me since switching to the
> new server or whatever. It duplicates to @gentoo.org and
> @lists.gentoo.org. I'd guess this has something to do with people
> sending to @gentoo.org when the list thinks it's @lists.gentoo.org, and
> it never gets things figured out.

Which client are you using? I use kmail which works correctly.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 546 bytes --]

On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 16:42 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Try that on any of the technical lists (any of the kernel or debian
> lists, for example) and you'll get screamed at -- there you're expected
> to send to the poster and Cc: the list. But then, those lists don't
> require subscriptions to post.

That's totally understandable on lists that don't require you to be
subscribed.  All the Gentoo ones do, that I am aware of.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 661 bytes --]

On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 20:11 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Thursday 14 April 2005 18:32, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Reply to List hasn't even worked properly for me since switching to the
> > new server or whatever. It duplicates to @gentoo.org and
> > @lists.gentoo.org. I'd guess this has something to do with people
> > sending to @gentoo.org when the list thinks it's @lists.gentoo.org, and
> > it never gets things figured out.
> 
> Which client are you using? I use kmail which works correctly.

Evolution works perfectly, too, here.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Jason Wever]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Chris Gianelloni wrote:

> Reply-to-All is evil.  You should be using Reply-to-List.  I know that I
> sure don't need to get the same email both on and off-list.  Off-list
> emails should be reserved only for when you explicitly do not want to
> send to the list and only to the original email's author.

And just how many mail clients support reply-to-list (which in and of 
itself doesn't have well defined standards and is not adhered to in any 
specific way by the myriads of mailing list software packages out there)? 
Not very many last I checked.

Best for now to deal with whether you want Reply-To to be altered or use 
Reply-To all.

Cheers,
- -- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCXs48dKvgdVioq28RAgnmAJwOTrTSJcDEZqKGaaNUNh6c+gxDoACguwu+
6d/wnRmEoHinnUwQ3jbEmeI=
=vhFH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Stuart Longland]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1592 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 00:15 +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
>
>>At the moment, I'm used to just clicking the Reply button to send to the
>>list... however, on most lists that I participate in, Reply-To is left
>>alone, so I'm normally in the habit of clicking Reply-To-All.  Seeing as
>>I normally have to consciously think *click Reply, not RTA*, I for one
>>certainly won't miss not having Reply-to-All.
>
>
> Reply-to-All is evil.  You should be using Reply-to-List.  I know that I
> sure don't need to get the same email both on and off-list.  Off-list
> emails should be reserved only for when you explicitly do not want to
> send to the list and only to the original email's author.

Well... someone should tell the Thunderbird people that... I'm still
hunting for the "Reply To List" button, and I've been looking for months.

Actually, some mailing list managers actually are intelligent enough to
not forward on an email if you're CC'ed.  (Mailman comes to mind)  I
agree, having messages sent in duplicate can be annoying, but its not
that hard to read one and delete the other. ;-)

Besides, normally I filter out the user's email address if I know
they're subscribed.

--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Stuart Longland -oOo- http://stuartl.longlandclan.hopto.org |
| Atomic Linux Project     -oOo-    http://atomicl.berlios.de |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
| I haven't lost my mind - it's backed up on a tape somewhere |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Georgi Georgiev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1515 bytes --]

maillog: 14/04/2005-14:10:34(-0600): Jason Wever types
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> 
> > Reply-to-All is evil.  You should be using Reply-to-List.  I know that I
> > sure don't need to get the same email both on and off-list.  Off-list
> > emails should be reserved only for when you explicitly do not want to
> > send to the list and only to the original email's author.
> 
> And just how many mail clients support reply-to-list (which in and of 
> itself doesn't have well defined standards and is not adhered to in any 
> specific way by the myriads of mailing list software packages out there)? 
> Not very many last I checked.

"L" seems to work fine great in mutt. I do not have the word "gentoo"
mentioned in my muttrc, but it properly got the address from the
"List-Post" header. I also tried it on a "List-Post:<mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>"
posting (that was CCed to @lists) and it was properly addressed to
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org.

Congratulations. There is at least one properly behaving mail client.

It will be known how proper if it sets the Mail-FollowUp-To: header on
this mail.

> Best for now to deal with whether you want Reply-To to be altered or use 
> Reply-To all.

I don't really care, but out of principle -- don't touch the header is
my vote.

-- 
\    Georgi Georgiev   \  Apples have meant trouble since eden. --     \
 /    chutz@gg3.net     / MaDsen Wikholm, mwikholm@at8.abo.fi           /
\   +81(90)2877-8845   \                                               \

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: reply-to munging

[Duncan]

Paul de Vrieze posted <200504142011.12080.pauldv@gentoo.org>, excerpted
below,  on Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:11:06 +0200:

> On Thursday 14 April 2005 18:32, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> Reply to List hasn't even worked properly for me since switching to the
>> new server or whatever. It duplicates to @gentoo.org and
>> @lists.gentoo.org. I'd guess this has something to do with people
>> sending to @gentoo.org when the list thinks it's @lists.gentoo.org, and
>> it never gets things figured out.
> 
> Which client are you using? I use kmail which works correctly.

kmail used to work just fine for me, too.  However, I definitely prefer
tracking lists as news, so use the gmane.org list2news gateway, now.  That
still seems to work just fine.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Andrea Barisani]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:32:59AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 
> Reply to List hasn't even worked properly for me since switching to the
> new server or whatever. It duplicates to @gentoo.org and
> @lists.gentoo.org. I'd guess this has something to do with people
> sending to @gentoo.org when the list thinks it's @lists.gentoo.org, and
> it never gets things figured out.

What MUA are you using? I guess there's something wrong with your setup,
let's look at the headers:

List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

There's no reference to @gentoo.org and our main MX server is rewriting @gentoo.org 
to @lists.gentoo.org every time. Are you seeing @gentoo.org in those headers
in the messages you are getting?

Bye

-- 
Andrea Barisani <lcars@gentoo.org>                            .*.
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Developer                          V
                                                             (   )
GPG-Key 0x864C9B9E http://dev.gentoo.org/~lcars/pubkey.asc   (   )
    0A76 074A 02CD E989 CE7F AC3F DA47 578E 864C 9B9E        ^^_^^
      "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: reply-to munging

[Torsten Veller]

* Stuart Longland <stuartl@longlandclan.hopto.org>:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >
> >Reply-to-All is evil.  You should be using Reply-to-List.  I know that I
> >sure don't need to get the same email both on and off-list.  Off-list
> >emails should be reserved only for when you explicitly do not want to
> >send to the list and only to the original email's author.
> 
> Well... someone should tell the Thunderbird people that..

They only need to look into their bugzilla.
If *you* want it -- vote for it!

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45715
Summary: "Reply to List" button
Opened: 2000-07-17 16:36 PDT
Target Milestone: Future
Votes: 66

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233417
Summary: Reply options: Ability to reply ToSender or ToList
Opened: 2004-02-08 07:05 PDT
Votes: 0

-- 
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 761 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 09:20 +1000, Stuart Longland wrote:
> Actually, some mailing list managers actually are intelligent enough to
> not forward on an email if you're CC'ed.  (Mailman comes to mind)  I
> agree, having messages sent in duplicate can be annoying, but its not
> that hard to read one and delete the other. ;-)

That would explain why I don't get dupes at work... ;]

No, it isn't hard.  It just really is annoying.  The truth is that I
would rather have the duplicated messages than not be able to
"Reply-to-Sender", so I'll deal. ;]

> Besides, normally I filter out the user's email address if I know
> they're subscribed.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Donnie Berkholz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrea Barisani wrote:
| There's no reference to @gentoo.org and our main MX server is
rewriting @gentoo.org
| to @lists.gentoo.org every time. Are you seeing @gentoo.org in those
headers
| in the messages you are getting?

Something has changed recently. I'm no longer getting both.

If I go back to a post from April 2 and hit reply all, I get @gentoo.org
and @robin.gentoo.org.

Today, I only get @lists.gentoo.org.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCYBuAXVaO67S1rtsRAqbEAKCV/41Dp0P+QhmfqqOFXoQGo+wFaACgnrlK
/tp5eUTISwMk+JYOXrdupyU=
=gLls
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Andrea Barisani]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:52:33PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Andrea Barisani wrote:
> | There's no reference to @gentoo.org and our main MX server is
> rewriting @gentoo.org
> | to @lists.gentoo.org every time. Are you seeing @gentoo.org in those
> headers
> | in the messages you are getting?
> 
> Something has changed recently. I'm no longer getting both.
> 
> If I go back to a post from April 2 and hit reply all, I get @gentoo.org
> and @robin.gentoo.org.

Well yeah that was the old configuration, everything was fixed some time ago
and I assumed that you were talking about recent messages.

Cheers


-- 
Andrea Barisani <lcars@gentoo.org>                            .*.
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Developer                          V
                                                             (   )
GPG-Key 0x864C9B9E http://dev.gentoo.org/~lcars/pubkey.asc   (   )
    0A76 074A 02CD E989 CE7F AC3F DA47 578E 864C 9B9E        ^^_^^
      "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[Donnie Berkholz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrea Barisani wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:52:33PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>Something has changed recently. I'm no longer getting both.
>>
>>If I go back to a post from April 2 and hit reply all, I get @gentoo.org
>>and @robin.gentoo.org.
> 
> 
> Well yeah that was the old configuration, everything was fixed some time ago
> and I assumed that you were talking about recent messages.

I was talking about recent messages. Our definitions of recent are just
different. =)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCYNZRXVaO67S1rtsRAkmaAKDgzWJ7vt1PRvD3M6nl5wmPfL+cvQCghVqw
Ma3Euh3ZLlxBayXxuUppmnI=
=x1W2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging

[D. Wokan]

Jason Wever wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
>> Reply-to-All is evil.  You should be using Reply-to-List.  I know that I
>> sure don't need to get the same email both on and off-list.  Off-list
>> emails should be reserved only for when you explicitly do not want to
>> send to the list and only to the original email's author.
>
>
> And just how many mail clients support reply-to-list (which in and of 
> itself doesn't have well defined standards and is not adhered to in 
> any specific way by the myriads of mailing list software packages out 
> there)? Not very many last I checked.
>
> Best for now to deal with whether you want Reply-To to be altered or 
> use Reply-To all.
>
> Cheers,
> - -- Jason Wever
> Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFCXs48dKvgdVioq28RAgnmAJwOTrTSJcDEZqKGaaNUNh6c+gxDoACguwu+
> 6d/wnRmEoHinnUwQ3jbEmeI=
> =vhFH
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> -- 
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Is there an extension for Thunderbird to add a reply-to-list function?  
For the record, I clicked reply instead of RTA out of habit.  I guess I 
just came to expect reply to go back to the intended audience (the list 
in this case).  Similar to (most) business users expecting replies to be 
at the top of the email instead of the bottom.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list