On Sat, 22 Nov 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 11/22/08 06:15, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> I thought kernel hackers were uber-geeks. How can they not implement
> decent mail filtering? If you use Mutt, you take upon yourself the
> responsibility to set up a server-side filter, and if you
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:45:33PM -0500, Celejar wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:15:25 -0700
> Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Answers are some from people who are still learning but mostly from
> > people who have very little to learn from following this list*. Really
> >
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:15:25 -0700
Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> Answers are some from people who are still learning but mostly from
> people who have very little to learn from following this list*. Really
> good answers come from a very small group of special people who set
> th
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 06:18:36PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Monday 24 November 2008 02:32:14 Chris Bannister wrote:
> > What harm? What's worse; rec a CC or missing out on crucial
> > help/information?
>
> That depends, whose perspective?
>
> > We are talking about newbies here.
>
>
On Monday 24 November 2008 02:32:14 Chris Bannister wrote:
> What harm? What's worse; rec a CC or missing out on crucial
> help/information?
That depends, whose perspective?
> We are talking about newbies here.
No, we're talking about the list in general and how a policy to coddle
newbi
On Monday 24 November 2008 02:31:53 Chris Bannister wrote:
> True, I uderstand that, but my thoughts are concerning newbies who post
> to the list and not being subscribed won't see a reply to their post.
How many archives for the list exist? They have methods of finding the
reply; often in
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:23:43PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the
> > > point in not CCing on a closed list.
> >
> > Cc'in
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 03:44:08AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Chris Bannister wrote:
> > Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the
> > point in not CCing on a closed list.
>
> For the same reasons. Whether the list is open or closed is irrelevant to
> the harm that
Teemu Likonen wrote:
> This is the last one: I suggest that you try to see norms of
> communication in social terms and concepts, not mathematical. The
> email-using world, as I see it, is mainly social.
What you're missing is that I am seeing them in social terms as well. I
see them in terms
Steve Lamb (2008-11-23 04:14 -0800) wrote:
> Problem is that this one can be quantified in what is harmful. It
> isn't a matter of preferences but of facts.
> That's not preference, that's simple mathematics.
I guess my suggestions failed. :-)
This is the last one: I suggest that you try to see
On Sunday 23 November 2008 03:09:04 Teemu Likonen wrote:
> It's usually about using the "correct" clients and
> configuration, mailing list configuration, Reply-To and Mail-Followup-To
> usage etc. So far nobody has managed to convince everybody that their
> system is the best one. Hence my point:
Steve Lamb (2008-11-22 17:59 -0800) wrote:
> None of the situations you cited are compelling enough to warrant the
> complete duplication of every message the list server sends out. Not a
> one.
That's good because my point was and is elsewhere. I'm not trying to
compel anybody about certain mail
On Saturday 22 November 2008 19:40:14 Ron Johnson wrote:
> Don't wear underwear?
AKA, the commando geek! Certainly one I would hope is able to filter on
in-reply-to. ;)
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who can decide what they dream
PGP Key: 1FC01004 | and dream I
On 11/22/08 19:47, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Saturday 22 November 2008 09:39:12 Ron Johnson wrote:
Wear fewer clothes...
Nah, I change underwear once a day. Most days I move from my home machine
which is still on TBird to a work VM on which I test KMail. So 3 client
changes an average day v
On Saturday 22 November 2008 10:44:35 Teemu Likonen wrote:
> Steve Lamb (2008-11-22 04:40 -0800) wrote:
> > That is absolute, 100% pure rubbish. This is solvable by technical
> > means, right now, today, if email client authors would just implement
> > a feature [...]
> I think that "being sol
On Saturday 22 November 2008 09:39:12 Ron Johnson wrote:
> Wear fewer clothes...
Nah, I change underwear once a day. Most days I move from my home machine
which is still on TBird to a work VM on which I test KMail. So 3 client
changes an average day vs. 1 underwear change. :)
--
On Saturday 22 November 2008 12:49:29 Andrei Popescu wrote:
> Of the open-source mailers I know only Thunderbird/Icedove doesn't
> support Reply-To-List by default. Claws-Mail even has a smart Reply
> button that does Reply-To-List by default if it detects a list. Now it's
> time for the webmails t
On Sat,22.Nov.08, 20:44:35, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> 1. Tell people to press the "Reply" button and configure mailing
> list software to add Reply-To header which points to the list
> address.
This goes against the standards (and you probably know it). One thing I
like about
Steve Lamb (2008-11-22 04:40 -0800) wrote:
> On Saturday 22 November 2008 04:15:42 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> Actually, to be very blunt: CCing people is absolutely the only way
>> to deal with massive ammounts of email and very-high-traffic lists
>> when you *care* about not ignoring e
On 11/22/08 09:10, Steve Lamb wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
(Of course, even if you use a GUI, if you are a geek you should
implement fetchmail/getmail, an MTA, a spam filter and procmail or
mailfilter and IMAP, so that you can switch MUAs as easily as you switch
underwear, or even access your mail
Ron Johnson wrote:
> (Of course, even if you use a GUI, if you are a geek you should
> implement fetchmail/getmail, an MTA, a spam filter and procmail or
> mailfilter and IMAP, so that you can switch MUAs as easily as you switch
> underwear, or even access your mail from across the LAN or even
> In
On 11/22/08 06:15, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
[snip]
Actually, to be very blunt: CCing people is absolutely the only way to deal
with massive ammounts of email and very-high-traffic lists when you *care*
about not ignoring email that you should have read.
If you want an example of a CC
On 11/22/08 02:02, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Fri,21.Nov.08, 17:59:30, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 11/21/08 14:23, Don Armstrong wrote:
[snip]
Because people who are subscribed to the list don't require extra
copies of mails. [And since anyone who wants a copy can request it
using MFT: or manually, it'
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> If you want an example of a CC policy radically different from Debian's,
> take a look at the development mailinglists for the Linux kernel and all
> related projects. There, the policy is that you are to *always* CC everyone
> that should (or might even remote
On Saturday 22 November 2008 04:15:42 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Actually, to be very blunt: CCing people is absolutely the only way to deal
> with massive ammounts of email and very-high-traffic lists when you *care*
> about not ignoring email that you should have read.
That is abso
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Chris Bannister wrote:
> > Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the
> > point in not CCing on a closed list.
>
> For the same reasons. Whether the list is open or closed is irrelevant to
> the harm that CCing people unbidden
Chris Bannister wrote:
> Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the
> point in not CCing on a closed list.
For the same reasons. Whether the list is open or closed is irrelevant to
the harm that CCing people unbidden causes. A list being open or closed is
also irrel
On Fri,21.Nov.08, 17:59:30, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 11/21/08 14:23, Don Armstrong wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Because people who are subscribed to the list don't require extra
>> copies of mails. [And since anyone who wants a copy can request it
>> using MFT: or manually, it's perfectly fine.]
>
> MFT?
On 11/21/08 14:23, Don Armstrong wrote:
[snip]
Because people who are subscribed to the list don't require extra
copies of mails. [And since anyone who wants a copy can request it
using MFT: or manually, it's perfectly fine.]
MFT?
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
If you don't agree with
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:40:16PM +, Brad Rogers wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:35:54 -0800
> Brian Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello Brian,
>
> > Whoops, I just checked that message again and noticed that the list
> > signature wasn't added with the attached PGP signature. Sorr
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 02:35:54PM -0800, Brian Marshall wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 02:31:25PM -0800, Brian Marshall wrote:
> > Odd. I see the list signatures with mutt, but PGP signatures are
> > recognized for me.
>
> Whoops, I just checked that message again and noticed that the list
> si
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:35:54 -0800
Brian Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Brian,
> Whoops, I just checked that message again and noticed that the list
> signature wasn't added with the attached PGP signature. Sorry.
There's some weirdness that results in it not always being displayed.
V
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 02:31:25PM -0800, Brian Marshall wrote:
> Odd. I see the list signatures with mutt, but PGP signatures are
> recognized for me.
Whoops, I just checked that message again and noticed that the list
signature wasn't added with the attached PGP signature. Sorry.
--
Brian
si
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 09:12:39AM -0900, Ken Irving wrote:
> >
> > Regards,
> > Andrei
> > --
> > If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
> > (Albert Einstein)
> >
> > [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
> > [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Encoding: 7bit,
On Fri,21.Nov.08, 12:23:43, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the
> > > point in not CCing on a closed list.
> >
> > Cc'ing on a closed
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the
> > point in not CCing on a closed list.
>
> Cc'ing on a closed list would be really stupid :)
Actually, that's the one plac
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 07:12:55PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
[snip]
> New posters should read the Code of Conduct? Listmasters, would you
> consider adding a link to the CoC at the bottom of list mails?
do we need more stuff on the bott
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 07:12:55PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, it doesn't explain why CCing is "discouraged" on an open list.
>
> New posters should read the Code of Conduct? Listmasters, would you
> consider adding a link to t
On Sat,22.Nov.08, 02:45:51, Chris Bannister wrote:
> Quite right, but why discourage CCing on an open list? I can see the
> point in not CCing on a closed list.
Cc'ing on a closed list would be really stupid :)
> > It is also not really necessary to subscribe in order to read the
> > replies;
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:27:47AM +0100, s. keeling wrote:
> Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:30:04AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
> > > makes this mistake, though. And I seem to remember a few posts where it
> > > was brought up that some users who post are not
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:15:58PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Chris Bannister wrote:
> > It makes more sense to either not allow posting unless subscribed or
> > have an open list but cc unless they explicitly request not be cc'd.
> >
> > Can anyone explain why the current policy is sane?
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:48:57AM +0100, s. keeling wrote:
> On the other hand, there's a world full of Windows users out there who
> know that top-posting is the right way to reply.
It's normally the minority of people which get it right, therefore if
you are in the majority you are probably wro
On Wed,19.Nov.08, 14:02:37, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 November 2008, Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote about 'Re: Q: List Policy':
> >On Mon,17.Nov.08, 22:03:20, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> >> It would be nice for the lis
On Wednesday 19 November 2008, Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote about 'Re: Q: List Policy':
>On Mon,17.Nov.08, 22:03:20, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> It would be nice for the list to auto-respond to any HTML posting with
>
>I'm pretty sure you won&#
On Mon,17.Nov.08, 22:03:20, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> Well, there has to be some punishment for not following the rules, or
> people won't follow them, right?
>
> It would be nice for the list to auto-respond to any HTML posting with
> a "You've posted HTML, which is against list policy,
On 11/19/08 01:54, Steve Lamb wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
But since most users (and probably developers) of Tbird are on Windows,
they just don't have the same ethos as old-time midrange admins, and so
I'm just thanking $DEITY that the plugin system exists.
Even then there is a huge barrier
Ron Johnson wrote:
> But since most users (and probably developers) of Tbird are on Windows,
> they just don't have the same ethos as old-time midrange admins, and so
> I'm just thanking $DEITY that the plugin system exists.
Even then there is a huge barrier to entry. I would love to write a
s. keeling wrote:
> Are we still waiting for killfiles in Mozilla (et al)'s nntp clients,
> or did they finally get around to that?
Heck if I know. I never used killfiles. Slrn + scoring was all I needed.
Yeah, yeah, - is killing but it isn't confined to a single killfile. :D
--
François Cerbelle wrote:
> Yes, there is some text... But it is acceptable because it did not alter
> neither what I wrote, nor the meaning of what I wrote.
It alters the contents of your message which is exactly what the post I
was replying to said should not happen. Now you're providing exc
On 11/18/08 21:03, s. keeling wrote:
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
Also, it might (or might not...) be a Tbird bug that it doesn't show
the UNSUBSCRIBE signature.
Tbird. I see the list sig also.
Silly man!!! Mozila apps have no bugs!!!
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
I
On Tuesday 18 November 2008, "S.D.Allen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: Here's something
interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)':
>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:53:47 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. in
>gmane.linux.debian.user wrote:
>> On Tues
ay 18 November 2008, "S.D.Allen"=20
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: Here's something=20
> interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)':
>>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:38:36 -0600, Ron Johnson in gmane.linux.debian.user=
>=20
> wrote:
>>> The on
Alex Samad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:27:47AM +0100, s. keeling wrote:
> > Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:30:04AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I'm not subscribed, and haven't been for years. I read the list in
> > the
Ken Irving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:43:49AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On 11/18/08 03:35, Ken Irving wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> also for some MIME forms if the last one is visible. The list software
> >> does not change, mung, or otherwise mess with message bodies other t
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 11/18/08 01:19, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > On Monday 17 November 2008, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > about 'Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)':
> >> Your email, t
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I'm fine switching my messages to text/plain vs. multipart/signed by not=20
> signing them or using an inline signature. I'm not fine with not being=20
> able to send non-ASCII characters to the list.
What? Why? It's an email mailing list. Ye
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:20:13PM EST, s. keeling wrote:
> Chris Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Patrick Wiseman a écrit :
> > > ...
> > >
> > > And why do you send message in text+HTML format to this list ? ;-)
> >
> > Yeah .. it took me a while to figure out how I could get mutt to display
>
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:27:47AM +0100, s. keeling wrote:
> Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:30:04AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
>
> I'm not subscribed, and haven't been for years. I read the list in
> the nntp "mail to news gateway" (cf. Usenet). Don
On Tuesday 18 November 2008, "S.D.Allen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: Here's something
interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)':
>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:38:36 -0600, Ron Johnson in gmane.linux.debian.user
wrote:
>> The only issue I see with it
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:43:49AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 11/18/08 03:35, Ken Irving wrote:
> [snip]
>> also for some MIME forms if the last one is visible. The list software
>> does not change, mung, or otherwise mess with message bodies other than
>
> Well it should!
http://bug
Hi, Here is fact ...
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 01:43:53PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> I was fairly sure that the policy for this list, and most of the Debian
> mailing lists was to NOT CC the poster in replies unless they requested
> it. Is that correct?
See http://www.debian.org/Mai
On 11/18/08 03:35, Ken Irving wrote:
[snip]
also for some MIME forms if the last one is visible. The list software
does not change, mung, or otherwise mess with message bodies other than
Well it should!
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
If you don't agree with me, you are worse than
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:38:36AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 11/18/08 01:19, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> On Monday 17 November 2008, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> about 'Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)':
>
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:38:36 -0600, Ron Johnson in gmane.linux.debian.user
wrote:
> The only issue I see with it is that each line ends with a "=20" and
> that text MUAs might not filter that part out.
Yes I agree. It doesn't here on slrn. It would be nice if the quoted
printable could be turne
On 11/18/08 01:19, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Monday 17 November 2008, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
about 'Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)':
Your email, though text, is really a quoted-printable attachment.
Tbird displays it as tex
On Monday 17 November 2008, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
about 'Here's something interesting... (was Re: Q: List Policy)':
>Your email, though text, is really a quoted-printable attachment.
>Tbird displays it as text, but eliminates the pgp-signature and t
On 11/17/08 21:50, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Monday 17 November 2008, "s. keeling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
about 'Re: Q: List Policy':
Hmm, tell that to the likes of Dan C in alt.os.linux.slackware, who
b*tch*s about people like you whose posts contain *two*
On 11/17/08 20:31, s. keeling wrote:
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Ron Johnson wrote:
It isn't that difficult to create Reply-to-List functionality.
Tell that to the TBird developers. We're going on, what, 4 years now=
and
counting? :(
Are we still waiting for killfiles in Mozil
On 11/17/08 22:32, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
[snip]
Plus, even if the list policy is outdated, it is still *list policy* and
should be followed until changed.
By not listing any punishments for infractions, I think that "they"
specifically meant the "Code of conduct" to be followed on th
On Monday 17 November 2008, "Patrick Wiseman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
about 'Re: Q: List Policy':
>I used to be rabid about plain text emails
I'm not a rabid as I used to be; I'll even open the HTML from time to time.
>Are there
>clients sen
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Monday 17 November 2008, "s. keeling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> about 'Re: Q: List Policy':
> >Perhaps we need one of the listmasters to enforce the usage
On Monday 17 November 2008, "s. keeling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
about 'Re: Q: List Policy':
>Perhaps we need one of the listmasters to enforce the usage
>guidelines? Post HTML or Cc: too often, and ...
>
>Nah. Dumb idea.
Well, there has to be some puni
On Monday 17 November 2008, "s. keeling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
about 'Re: Q: List Policy':
>Hmm, tell that to the likes of Dan C in alt.os.linux.slackware, who
>b*tch*s about people like you whose posts contain *two* sets of
>sig-dashes; yours, and the l
Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:30:04AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
> > makes this mistake, though. And I seem to remember a few posts where it
> > was brought up that some users who post are not subscribed. So, go
> > figure.
>
> Catch 22 -- if they are not
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 11/17/08 00:33, François Cerbelle wrote:
> > Steve Lamb a écrit :
> >>
> >> Really? You believe that? *looks at the footer appended to
> >> every message* Then, u, a header is the least of your
> >> concerns. I look forward to your Don Quixote quest
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > It isn't that difficult to create Reply-to-List functionality.
>
> Tell that to the TBird developers. We're going on, what, 4 years now=
> and
> counting? :(
Are we still waiting for killfiles in Mozilla (et al)'s nntp clients
Chris Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 02:27:28PM EST, François Cerbelle wrote:
> > Patrick Wiseman a écrit :
> > ...
> >
> > And why do you send message in text+HTML format to this list ? ;-)
>
> Yeah .. it took me a while to figure out how I could get mutt to display
> th
Bob Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:05:36 -0600, Ron Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
> > On 11/16/08 00:38, Celejar wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:33:43 -0600
> >> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The most common MUAs (and all webmail) don't all
Patrick Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> --=_Part_24413_25996402.1226805705201
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 11/15/08 13:43,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Bannister wrote:
> It makes more sense to either not allow posting unless subscribed or
> have an open list but cc unless they explicitly request not be cc'd.
>
> Can anyone explain why the current policy is sane?
Maybe someone is in an 'emerge
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:30:04AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
> makes this mistake, though. And I seem to remember a few posts where it
> was brought up that some users who post are not subscribed. So, go
> figure.
Catch 22 -- if they are not subscribed they will not be able to read
any .sig f
On 11/17/08 00:33, François Cerbelle wrote:
Steve Lamb a écrit :
François Cerbelle wrote:
A list should *NEVER* alter the contents of a message and the reply-to
field *DOES BELONGS TO THE CONTENTS* of the message.
Really? You believe that? *looks at the footer appended to every
message
Steve Lamb a écrit :
François Cerbelle wrote:
A list should *NEVER* alter the contents of a message and the reply-to
field *DOES BELONGS TO THE CONTENTS* of the message.
Really? You believe that? *looks at the footer appended to every
message* Then, u, a header is the least of your
On 11/16/08 13:28, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
François Cerbelle wrote:
A list should *NEVER* alter the contents of a message and the
reply-to field *DOES BELONGS TO THE CONTENTS* of the message.
What happens if one of the subscribers does want to have a reply on a
specific address ? It is its
On 11/16/08 17:53, Steve Lamb wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
According to the upstream website (and which I confirmed myself), using
v0.3.0 with emails stored in IMAP kills Tbird as soon as you click on
Replt-To-List.
Actually here it doesn't kill TBird, it just doesn't work. At all. I
found
François Cerbelle wrote:
> A list should *NEVER* alter the contents of a message and the reply-to
> field *DOES BELONGS TO THE CONTENTS* of the message.
Really? You believe that? *looks at the footer appended to every
message* Then, u, a header is the least of your concerns. I look fo
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:16:03PM EST, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Chris Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 02:27:28PM EST, François Cerbelle wrote:
> >> Patrick Wiseman a écrit :
> >> ...
> >>
> >> And why do you send message in text+HTML fo
Ron Johnson wrote:
> According to the upstream website (and which I confirmed myself), using
> v0.3.0 with emails stored in IMAP kills Tbird as soon as you click on
> Replt-To-List.
Actually here it doesn't kill TBird, it just doesn't work. At all. I
found 0.2.0 on the addon site but it, too
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Chris Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 02:27:28PM EST, François Cerbelle wrote:
>> Patrick Wiseman a écrit :
>> ...
>>
>> And why do you send message in text+HTML format to this list ? ;-)
>
> Yeah .. it took me a while to figure out how I
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 02:23:12PM EST, François Cerbelle wrote:
> Patrick Wiseman a écrit :
> >How so? When I reply to an email to this list, gmail presumes I want to
> >reply to the sender. I simply change the return address to the list. I
> >manage several forums on which I set Reply-To to
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 02:27:28PM EST, François Cerbelle wrote:
> Patrick Wiseman a écrit :
> ...
>
> And why do you send message in text+HTML format to this list ? ;-)
Yeah .. it took me a while to figure out how I could get mutt to display
the text/plain version rather than the text/html versi
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:05:36 -0600, Ron Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 11/16/08 00:38, Celejar wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:33:43 -0600
>> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> The most common MUAs (and all webmail) don't allow Reply-to to be
>>> set to anythi
Roger B.A. Klorese a écrit :
It's the right of the list-owner to set reply policy. If the list's
policy is that replies must be to the list - as many owners of
community-style lists require - the subscriber can either go along with
it or go away.
What would you think if the listmaster decide
François Cerbelle wrote:
A list should *NEVER* alter the contents of a message and the
reply-to field *DOES BELONGS TO THE CONTENTS* of the message.
What happens if one of the subscribers does want to have a reply on a
specific address ? It is its right and the ListMaster do not have to
impo
Patrick Wiseman a écrit :
...
And why do you send message in text+HTML format to this list ? ;-)
Fanfan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patrick Wiseman a écrit :
How so? When I reply to an email to this list, gmail presumes I want to
reply to the sender. I simply change the return address to the list. I
manage several forums on which I set Reply-To to the forum address;
gmail respects that. If there's a problem here, it's n
On 11/16/08 10:14, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
Of course. Which is why $SOMEONE wrote the Tbird replytolist plugin...
Unfortunately, that plugin does not work, at least for me and other
people that observed the same effect. It does not crash, the but
reply-to-list button
Ron Johnson wrote:
> Of course. Which is why $SOMEONE wrote the Tbird replytolist plugin...
>
Unfortunately, that plugin does not work, at least for me and other
people that observed the same effect. It does not crash, the but
reply-to-list button is always disabled.
--
He's a about half t
On 11/16/08 04:36, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Sunday 16 November 2008 04:20, Ron Johnson wrote:
The ability to set the Reply-to Address serves no
purpose to someone subscribed to mailing lists, and wants to easily
reply to the list.
I find the easiest, mostly client-independent way to do
On 11/16/08 06:23, Steve Lamb wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
Webmail and popular MUAs like Tbird and Lookout make it difficult to
follow the no-CC "rule". Someone, though, has thoughtfully written a
replytolist plugin for Tbird/Icedove. Get v0.3.0 unless you use IMAP,
which requires you to use v0.2
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
