Incoming from Thomas Adam:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:54:10PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > So use one that does. What is your point?
>
> Switching to using a different MUA is a ridiculous suggestion.
I'll bet there's a lot of IE users out there saying the same thing to
CERT. It is a reasona
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 01:09:03AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:54:10PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > So use one that does. What is your point?
>
> Why the hell should you have to change MUAs just to satify a pithy
> means to automate a task you should also do manually
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:54:10PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> So use one that does. What is your point?
Why the hell should you have to change MUAs just to satify a pithy
means to automate a task you should also do manually anyway, and
that is edit/check the headers before sending.
Switching t
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 07:32:53AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> Brian Nelson wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 07:03:10AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Brian Nelson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Um, what's wrong with Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Am I
> >>>missing something?
> >
Incoming from Monique Y. Mudama:
> On 2004-08-10, s. keeling penned:
> > Incoming from Monique Y. Mudama:
> >>
> >> Fine. I'll get rid of this reply-to, since apparently it's not only
> >> causing trouble but also spawning conspiracy theories. But I won't
> >
> > fwiw, I think you should give it
Brian Nelson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 07:03:10AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Brian Nelson wrote:
Um, what's wrong with Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Am I
missing something?
People won't be able to reply to you personally, but that sounds like
what you want.
Not appropriate fo
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 07:03:10AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> Brian Nelson wrote:
>
> >Um, what's wrong with Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Am I
> >missing something?
> >
> >People won't be able to reply to you personally, but that sounds like
> >what you want.
>
> Not appropriate for any oth
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:58:52PM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> IE, do a significant number of clients interpret "reply-to" as "always
> reply to this address even if replying to a message that came from a
> list"?
That is MUA-dependant, but generally that address is used primarily
over all
On 2004-08-10, s. keeling penned:
> Incoming from Monique Y. Mudama:
>>
>> Fine. I'll get rid of this reply-to, since apparently it's not only
>> causing trouble but also spawning conspiracy theories. But I won't
>> hold
>
> fwiw, I think you should give it more time to be tested. I thought it
Brian Nelson wrote:
Um, what's wrong with Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Am I
missing something?
People won't be able to reply to you personally, but that sounds like
what you want.
Not appropriate for any other list.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tourist pics ht
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:29:20PM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> I agree, though. It would be nice to have a reliable way to keep people
> from emailing me directly about list stuff. And of course, it would be
> nice for other folks to have a reliable way to request that people *do*
> send th
Incoming from Monique Y. Mudama:
>
> Fine. I'll get rid of this reply-to, since apparently it's not only
> causing trouble but also spawning conspiracy theories. But I won't hold
fwiw, I think you should give it more time to be tested. I thought it
was pretty inventive. I also thought it was
On 2004-08-10, Jim Bailey penned:
> On Aug 09, 11:16, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>> On 2004-08-09, Jim Bailey penned:
>> >
>> > I use mutt, if I press 'r' to reply I get offered the following
>> > address
>> >
>> > Reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([yes]/no):
>> >
>> > If I refuse I get offered your bounce
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> > That's your mail server or client changing localhost to
> > Mail.Linux-x-Consulting.com. Her Reply-To shows up as "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> > here on my computer.
>
> What Jacob said. I'm not malicious/weird/industrious enough to hunt
> down domains
hi ya jacob
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Jacob S. wrote:
> Yep, looks like one of the links in your chain is messing with
> the Reply-To when it shouldn't.
yup ... looks that way, that my local pine is too too too old ..
> See below for a header from my mua.
good to compare ... the only line that is
On Aug 09, 11:16, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> On 2004-08-09, Jim Bailey penned:
> >
> > I use mutt, if I press 'r' to reply I get offered the following
> > address
> >
> > Reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([yes]/no):
> >
> > If I refuse I get offered your bounce address, neither of which are
> > good opti
On 2004-08-09, s. keeling penned:
> Incoming from Monique Y. Mudama:
>>
>> (I've never quite figured out the difference in functionality between
>> the "lists" and "subscribe" keywords, tbh.)
>
> Use lists for those from whom you DO wish to receive personal replies.
> Use subscribe for those from
On 2004-08-09, Jacob S. penned:
> --Signature=_Mon__9_Aug_2004_17_18_21_-0500_O+GNO+CAlf+ZZBu.
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:45:14 -0700 (PDT) Alvin Oga
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> usin
(main.gmane.org [80.91.224.249])
>
> x> Received: from home.bounceswoosh.org ([66.17.169.80])
> x> Received: from spam by home.bounceswoosh.org with local (Gmexim 0.1
> x> Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> x> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> x> From: "Monique Y.
On 2004-08-09, Brian Nelson penned:
>
> Of course it's a valid answer. It implies that reading the lists on
> gmane is underpowered for what she wants and should change her setup.
> It's already been made clear the problem is on her end (yeah, it
> sucks, but that's raelity) since there are no oth
oosh.org with local (Gmexim 0.1
x> Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
x> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
x> From: "Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
x> Subject: Re: Bogus reply-to
..
x> Reply-To: "keep it in the list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
hummm the mua
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Alvin Oga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hi ya "keep it in the list" :-0
>
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>
> > Yup. I realize this. I'm just so frustrated. If I request no cc's
> > in my sig, I get tons of mail telling me that I should
hi ya "keep it in the list" :-0
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> Yup. I realize this. I'm just so frustrated. If I request no cc's in
> my sig, I get tons of mail telling me that I should use the headers
> instead. If I use the headers, I get cc'd. Actually, I got cc'd even
> w
On 2004-08-09, Brian Nelson penned:
>
> For procmail:
>
> # Duplicate message filtering
>
> #Turns ON or OFF filtering of exact message duplicates.
> DOUBLEMESSAGESFILTER=ON
>
>:0 Wh: msgid.lock * DOUBLEMESSAGESFILTER ?? ^^ON^^ | formail -D 8192
>msgid.cache
>
> # END Duplicate message filtering
A
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 03:58:25PM -0500, Jacob S. wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:29:41 -0700
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > For procmail:
> >
> > # Duplicate message filtering
> >
> > #Turns ON or OFF filtering of exact message duplicates.
> > DOUBLEMESSAGESFILTER=ON
> >
> > :
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:29:41 -0700
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 11:28:11AM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> > On 2004-08-09, Brian Nelson penned:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, those headers are not specified in the relevant
> > > RFCs and are not in wide use outsi
Brian Nelson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 11:28:11AM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-08-09, Brian Nelson penned:
Unfortunately, those headers are not specified in the relevant RFCs
and are not in wide use outside of Linux and other highly technical
mailing lists. Support for MFT
Incoming from Monique Y. Mudama:
>
> (I've never quite figured out the difference in functionality between
> the "lists" and "subscribe" keywords, tbh.)
Use lists for those from whom you DO wish to receive personal
replies. Use subscribe for those from whom you DO NOT wish to receive
personal re
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 11:28:11AM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> On 2004-08-09, Brian Nelson penned:
> >
> > Unfortunately, those headers are not specified in the relevant RFCs
> > and are not in wide use outside of Linux and other highly technical
> > mailing lists. Support for MFT and MCT he
On 2004-08-09, Brian Nelson penned:
>
> Unfortunately, those headers are not specified in the relevant RFCs
> and are not in wide use outside of Linux and other highly technical
> mailing lists. Support for MFT and MCT headers is strictly optional,
> so many mail client authors/vendors simply choo
On 2004-08-09, Jim Bailey penned:
>
> I use mutt, if I press 'r' to reply I get offered the following
> address
>
> Reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([yes]/no):
>
> If I refuse I get offered your bounce address, neither of which are
> good options.
What do you mean by my bounce address? If you mean the
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 03:29:55AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> Brian Nelson wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 11:22:02PM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> >
> >># Mail-copies-to: never
> >># Mail-followup-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>Aren't these the vaunted headers? And yet, I get cc'd
Brian Nelson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 11:22:02PM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-08-09, Tim Connors penned:
What I am saying, is all of these discussion lists have differnt
policies. It's kind of silly expecting people to remember which
policy belongs to which list, and blast
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 11:22:02PM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> On 2004-08-09, Tim Connors penned:
> >
> > What I am saying, is all of these discussion lists have differnt
> > policies. It's kind of silly expecting people to remember which
> > policy belongs to which list, and blasting people
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 14:50:11 +0100
Jim Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 08, 11:22, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>
> > # Mail-copies-to: never
> > # Mail-followup-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Aren't these the vaunted headers? And yet, I get cc'd, or directly
> > emailed, all the time. Eith
On Aug 08, 11:22, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> On 2004-08-09, Tim Connors penned:
> >
> > What I am saying, is all of these discussion lists have differnt
> > policies. It's kind of silly expecting people to remember which
> > policy belongs to which list, and blasting people when they get it
> > wr
"Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sun, 8 Aug 2004 23:48:43 -0600:
> On 2004-08-08, Tim Connors penned:
> > "Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sun, 8 Aug 2004
> > 10:05:12 -0600:
> >
> > I suggest that gmane is the wrong tool for the job - I;ve heard plenty
> > of people s
On 2004-08-08, Tim Connors penned:
> "Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sun, 8 Aug 2004
> 10:05:12 -0600:
>
> I suggest that gmane is the wrong tool for the job - I;ve heard plenty
> of people say it sucks for mailing lists, and this appears to be
> another case (actually, google seem
On 2004-08-09, Tim Connors penned:
>
> What I am saying, is all of these discussion lists have differnt
> policies. It's kind of silly expecting people to remember which
> policy belongs to which list, and blasting people when they get it
> wrong.
My understanding is that gmane translates my Mail
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, John Summerfield wrote:
>
> >I personally think that policies on mailing lists shouldn't dictate
> >things like reply-to (not that this one has been made publicly known
> >other than through your rants), because some people prefer to get a
> >reply-to (me, for example - reply-t
I too use the wrong tool for the job; I am reading this through
news://linux.debian.user (newsgroups are so much more convenient that
mailing lists, particularly since I already read a dozen newsfroups),
which preserves every header, so I can munge them back into something
sensible, *except* it do
"Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sun, 8 Aug 2004 10:05:12 -0600:
> On 2004-08-08, Tim Connors penned:
> >:0 a:
> > .duplicates
> >
>
> Do I really need to repeat for the hundredth time that I read
> debian-user through gmane, ie, as a newsgroup, so that your procmail
> recipe does p
On 2004-08-08, Tim Connors penned:
> "Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sat, 7 Aug 2004 20:28:08 -0600:
> x> I don't know if that would even have a prayer of working, but I don't
>> want to do anything malicious; I'm just sick of getting duplicates!
>
> .procmailrc:
>
> # if testing, d
Tim Connors wrote:
"Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sat, 7 Aug 2004 20:28:08 -0600:
x> I don't know if that would even have a prayer of working, but I don't
want to do anything malicious; I'm just sick of getting duplicates!
.procmailrc:
# if testing, don't do duplicate test
"Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sat, 7 Aug 2004 20:28:08 -0600:
x> I don't know if that would even have a prayer of working, but I don't
> want to do anything malicious; I'm just sick of getting duplicates!
.procmailrc:
# if testing, don't do duplicate test
# avoid duplicate messa
On 2004-08-08, Alvin Oga penned:
>
> hi ya "keep it in the list"
>
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. It drives me bonkers when I get
>> personal emails that are just copies of what I've already read on the
>> list.
>
> shouldnt your get your
On Sun, 8 Aug 2004, John Summerfield wrote:
> I presume Alvin thinks that sending mail to &halt;@their-domain.com
> might shutdown someone's system. Might.
"might" was the whole point of the entertainment
( if it works, it'd be super hilarious - esp since its NOT supposed to
work )
> It's p
Alvin Oga wrote:
hi ya "keep it in the list"
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. It drives me bonkers when I get
personal emails that are just copies of what I've already read on the
list.
shouldnt your get your (unwanted) cc mail before you g
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-08-07, Alvin Oga penned:
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, John Summerfield wrote:
I think M was aiming at list members whose aim isa little sloppy.
/dev/null is fine: if it's delivered to their own machine perhaps
they will wake up to what tbey're doing.
they can
hi ya "keep it in the list"
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. It drives me bonkers when I get
> personal emails that are just copies of what I've already read on the
> list.
shouldnt your get your (unwanted) cc mail before you get the mail fro
On 2004-08-07, John Summerfield penned:
> Alvin Oga wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, John Summerfield wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I noticed you're setting replyto,I thought [EMAIL PROTECTED] a more
>>>fun address to send it to. Perhaps, though, root is even better:-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>root usually is /dev/nu
On 2004-08-07, Alvin Oga penned:
>
>
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, John Summerfield wrote:
>
>> I think M was aiming at list members whose aim isa little sloppy.
>> /dev/null is fine: if it's delivered to their own machine perhaps
>> they will wake up to what tbey're doing.
>
> they can mail to &halt;@the
On 2004-08-07, John Summerfield penned:
>
> I noticed you're setting replyto,I thought [EMAIL PROTECTED] a more fun
> address to send it to. Perhaps, though, root is even better:-)
I saw someone set their reply-to to a bogus email address at a made-up
server; I hate to use what might be someone el
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, John Summerfield wrote:
> >they can mail to &halt;@their-domain.com too
> >
>
> Try it.
i'm assuming most mua's are smart enuff not to do silly things
and i don't like doing qa/qc manually ... :-)
- just make a giant script that does all that for ya
c ya
alvin
--
To UNSU
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, John Summerfield wrote:
> I think M was aiming at list members whose aim isa little sloppy.
> /dev/null is fine: if it's delivered to their own machine perhaps they
> will wake up to what tbey're doing.
they can mail to &halt;@their-domain.com too
sometimes /sbin and /us
Alvin Oga wrote:
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, John Summerfield wrote:
I think M was aiming at list members whose aim isa little sloppy.
/dev/null is fine: if it's delivered to their own machine perhaps they
will wake up to what tbey're doing.
they can mail to &halt;@their-domain.com too
Try it
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, John Summerfield wrote:
> I noticed you're setting replyto,I thought [EMAIL PROTECTED] a more fun
> address to send it to. Perhaps, though, root is even better:-)
root usually is /dev/null'd by some folks that wanna do that for some
odd reason
use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... or s
Alvin Oga wrote:
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, John Summerfield wrote:
I noticed you're setting replyto,I thought [EMAIL PROTECTED] a more fun
address to send it to. Perhaps, though, root is even better:-)
root usually is /dev/null'd by some folks that wanna do that for some
odd reason
use [EMAIL PR
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-08-06, John Summerfield penned:
keep it in the list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Make this <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:-)
Any particular reason, or are you just having fun?
I noticed you're setting replyto,I thought [EMAIL PROTECTED] a more fun
address to send it to. Per
59 matches
Mail list logo
