Chris Bannister wrote:
> Sorry if it seems OT, but all talk is about Thunderbird, KMail, mutt ...
> but not Gnus. Too esoteric?
Generally speaking when one talks about mail clients one doesn't include
text editors in the conversation.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm
On Saturday 01 October 2005 08:19, John Hasler wrote:
>Chris Bannister writes:
>> So, do people use Gnus to read the debian-* lists from usenet, or are
>> {quite|very} happy using Gnus as a mail client.
>
>I am very happy using Gnus to read both news and email.
Thats not the first time I've heard
Chris Bannister writes:
> So, do people use Gnus to read the debian-* lists from usenet, or are
> {quite|very} happy using Gnus as a mail client.
I am very happy using Gnus to read both news and email.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 05:44:20PM -0400, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>
> >>Doesn't T-bird have a "Reply to list" option?
> >>
> >
> >It does NOT.
>
>
> Neither Thunderbird has the reply to list button nor there is an
> extension which enables this behavior.
>
> I have com
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:46:48 -0700
> Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Clients that treat IMAP like a glorified POP should
>>just remove it and save the compile time. Seriously.
> When I've examined the ~/.evolution IMAP cache, I see
> headers, not mail bodies.
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:37:53 -0500
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Must be a bug. In Sylpheed 2.0.1-1 (GTK+ version 2.6.10),
> Message->"Reply to"->"Mailing list" does what it's supposed
> to do: put only debian-user@lists.debian.org in To:, and
> nothing in Cc:.
I figured as much, I gu
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:46:48 -0700
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > If you say so. It works well enough for my limited needs.
>
> Clients that treat IMAP like a glorified POP should
> just remove it and save the compile time. Seriously.
When I've examined the
Ron Johnson wrote:
> If you say so. It works well enough for my limited needs.
Clients that treat IMAP like a glorified POP should just remove it and
save the compile time. Seriously.
>>Harfs on IMAPS
> For those of use who don't use IMAPS, though...
Ah, yes, passwords in the clea
Seth Goodman wrote:
> I am well aware of the differences between the two standards. You would do
> well to read them both carefully as well as RFC1123.
Apparently not since you got them backwards and couldn't even see the
problems in your own argument.
> In the redistribution case, the only
> From: Steve Lamb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 2:50 AM
>
>
> Seth Goodman wrote:
> > Referencing 822 for much of anything these days is not very
> > useful, unless
> > if you're interested in email history.
>
> Which is something you need to know when blatently
Seth Goodman wrote:
> Referencing 822 for much of anything these days is not very useful, unless
> if you're interested in email history.
Which is something you need to know when blatently getting 822 and 2822
backwards when it comes to reply-to.
> As I pointed out in a previous post,
> Reply
> From: Steve Lamb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 2:41 PM
>
>
> Seth Goodman wrote:
> > Getting back to the reply function, the standards are silent as
> > to how to
> > treat Reply-To: for a redistributed message and the field is optional to
> > start with. The pre
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 17:39:40 -0700
Seeker5528 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:40:50 -0700
> Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> To add to the insanity (at least with sylpheed-claws-gtk2)
> it seems if the Reply To: field contains the posters email
> address the
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:40:50 -0700
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wrong, wrong, wrong. How you can cite 2822 as a reference for reply-to
> munging while denouncing 822 is beyond me. It was 822 that had an explicit
> reference to mailing lists as an acceptable use of 822. 2822 *remo
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:43:59 -0700
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > The solution is to use Sylpheed,
>
> Doesn't do IMAP properly.
If you say so. It works well enough for my limited needs.
> > Evolution
>
> Harfs on IMAPS
For those of use who don't use
Seth Goodman wrote:
> Getting back to the reply function, the standards are silent as to how to
> treat Reply-To: for a redistributed message and the field is optional to
> start with. The preferred reply action for a mailing list message is to
> reply to the list (the actual sender of the message
Ron Johnson wrote:
> The solution is to use Sylpheed,
Doesn't do IMAP properly.
> Evolution
Harfs on IMAPS and, get this, doesn't allow you to configure the wrap
column. It is hard coded to 72 IIRC.
> KMail
Lousy IMAP support and can't figure out how to keep separate mail accoun
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Threading is based on message IDs. The mailer threads properly.
Threading is based on the References header which is a News header.
In-reply-to is insufficient for complete threading when one hop is missing. :P
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm y
Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> 2) Respond to the list and don't CC me
> So in this case, do we hit reply-all, and cut and paste the list email
> as the To: line, removing all others, etc?
Yes. This is a problem with Thunderbird as there is no list reply. One
of the few problems with an otherwise
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 14:20 -0400, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
>
>>Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>>
>>This is fine. Notice how "reply to the list, but don't CC me" isn't
>>part of what "reasonable mailers" are expected to do:
>>
>>"Rep
Albert wrote:
> Yes, you are right. Debian does this different than the rest of the world.
That's because we do it the right way. As of RFC2822 reply-to munging is
clearly wrong while in 822 there was a clear indication it was allowed.
Furthermore several other list headers are included for e
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 17:44 -0400, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>
> >> Doesn't T-bird have a "Reply to list" option?
> >>
> >
> > It does NOT.
>
>
> Neither Thunderbird has the reply to list button nor there is an
> extension which enables this behavior.
>
> I have composed
On Friday 23 September 2005 11:48 am, Mike McCarty wrote:
> CRAP! Another one I had to pull from my sent
> and forward.
Yes, it's a known bug in Thunderbird. Bugzilla numbers are posted in the
archives, vote for them and/or submit a patch.
pgphfXjKd5reo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:10:31 +0100
Antony Gelberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you are upset about all the clicking and window changing, perhaps
> you should consider a console-based mail client.
Or even a GUI client that is compliant such as Sylpheed-claws.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
"Well, let's ju
Mike said:
Threading is based on message IDs. The mailer threads properly.
The message ID should not change based on whom the message is sent AFAICT,
so who is in the reply feild does not really matter.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
"John Hasler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joe Smith writes:
Rember that email was not designed for threading. Threading was what
newsgroups were invented for.
No. News was invented to reduce traffic. There used to be a rule of
thumb
on how large a mailing-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Antony Gelberg
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 12:11 PM
<...>
> Another option for those who don't like the list policy is to become
> Debian Developers and change the policy.
What an appealing offer. In other words, non-developers need not express
thei
Joe Smith writes:
> Rember that email was not designed for threading. Threading was what
> newsgroups were invented for.
No. News was invented to reduce traffic. There used to be a rule of thumb
on how large a mailing-list should get before it was replaced by a
newsgroup.
> This is supposed to
Mike McCarty wrote:
Doesn't T-bird have a "Reply to list" option?
It does NOT.
Neither Thunderbird has the reply to list button nor there is an
extension which enables this behavior.
I have composed a list of email clients which do/do not have this
feature. The list can be found at
h
Joe Smith wrote:
"Mike McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ron Johnson wrote:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Using what he recommends ruins threaded reading, because
the reply goes to the originator of the message, and the
list gets CCd.
"Mike McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ron Johnson wrote:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Using what he recommends ruins threaded reading, because
the reply goes to the originator of the message, and the
list gets CCd.
That sounds like a
> From: Ron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 12:50 PM
<...>
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
This is written from the perspective of Elm being the reference for all
MUA's. Though I used Elm twenty years ago as my primary MUA, the MUA's in
wide
Good afternoon!
So in this case, do we hit reply-all, and cut and paste the list email as
the To: line, removing all others, etc?
I use reply all and then cut out everyone's name leaving only the list
address.
So far, I haven't annoyed anyone.
Rob
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
Antony Gelberg wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 12:25 -0400, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
If you send question to the list, you should expect the answer
to only go to the list.
Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much "respond this w
CRAP! Another one I had to pull from my sent
and forward.
Original Message
Subject: Re: Responses to the list
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:47:52 -0500
From: Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ron Johnson wrote:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Using what he recommends ruins threaded reading, because
the reply goes to the originator of the message, and the
list gets CCd.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 14:20 -0400, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> This is fine. Notice how "reply to the list, but don't CC me" isn't
> part of what "reasonable mailers" are expected to do:
>
> "Reply-To munging does not ben
Ron Johnson wrote:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
This is fine. Notice how "reply to the list, but don't CC me" isn't
part of what "reasonable mailers" are expected to do:
"Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer.
People want to munge Reply-To h
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 12:39 -0500, Albert wrote:
Yes, you are right. Debian does this different than the rest of
the world.
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Yes, this ancient piece of Holy Writ was quoted to me years ago.
Still, Debian does this different
Antony Gelberg wrote:
... I have it set up to read
this list via the newsgroup linux.debian.user. Hitting reply goes to
the group. Perhaps this is something that some Thunderbird users should
consider.
Excellent idea. Thank you.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 12:46 -0500, Albert wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 11:52 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >
> >>Ron Johnson wrote:
> >>
>
> >>>Doesn't T-bird have a "Reply to list" option?
> >>
> >>It does NOT.
> >
> > Oh. Now I understand your problem.
> >
> > The sol
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 12:39 -0500, Albert wrote:
> Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> > [Sorry for replying in that other thread, here is a new one:]
> >
> >
> > Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much "respond this way" on the list
> > lately. I'm using Tbird, and when I hit "reply" it replies to the
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 11:52 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
Doesn't T-bird have a "Reply to list" option?
It does NOT.
Oh. Now I understand your problem.
The solution is to use Sylpheed, Evolution or KMail.
No, the solution is not to let anyone bully
Angelo Bertolli wrote:
[Sorry for replying in that other thread, here is a new one:]
Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much "respond this way" on the list
lately. I'm using Tbird, and when I hit "reply" it replies to the
poster only. When I hit "reply-all" it goes to the poster, the list,
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 11:52 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 12:25 -0400, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> >
> >>Ron Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>If you send question to the list, you should expect the answer
> >>>to only go to the list.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Ok,
n-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Responses to the list (oops)
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:39:18 +0100
>
> Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> > [Sorry for replying in that other thread, here is a new one:]
> >
> >
> > Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much "re
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 12:25 -0400, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
If you send question to the list, you should expect the answer
to only go to the list.
Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much "respond this way" on the list
lately. I'm using Tbird, and wh
Angelo Bertolli wrote:
[Sorry for replying in that other thread, here is a new one:]
Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much "respond this way" on the list
lately. I'm using Tbird, and when I hit "reply" it replies to the
poster only. When I hit "reply-all" it goes to the poster, the list,
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 12:25 -0400, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >If you send question to the list, you should expect the answer
> >to only go to the list.
> >
> >
> Ok, now I'm confused. I've seen so much "respond this way" on the list
> lately. I'm using Tbird, and when I
49 matches
Mail list logo
