Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On 1/3/06, *Tom Bruno* <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
I'm tired of hitting reply and then realizing my reply went directly to the person and not the list. It doesn't make sense to _ME_ to default replying to off list because the whole point of the list is to see the questions and the answers. So i propose that we change the mailing list to put [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> first in the list of whom to reply so that when people hit reply they reply to the list since technically the list sent them the message.
The only time I can see having the user who emailed in the reply is if it is a mailing list that allows non-subscribers to post. Since, a non-subscriber would not see the reply if it was only sent to the list. This is a closed, subscriber only list though. There's no reason to even send the message to the users e-mail. A "reply to all" the original poster gets the message twice.
That of course is not what I'm asking. Leave the user's email or don't, i just want the list's email listed first.
I aggree, it seems silly for any mailing list would not have thigns setup that way.
On 1/3/06, Tom Bruno [email protected] wrote:
The only time I can see having the user who emailed in the reply is if it is a mailing list that allows non-subscribers to post. Since, a non-subscriber would not see the reply if it was only sent to the list. This is a closed, subscriber only list though. There's no reason to even send the message to the users e-mail. A "reply to all" the original poster gets the message twice.
On the other hand, if the list is set to reply back to the list itself, and I want to reply to a particular user and click 'Reply to All', I don't have the option of simply erasing '[email protected]' and going on with life. The Reply-To header munging eliminates their email address. Then I have to go back to the original email, copy the user's email address, and paste it into the new email. This is a big pain for someone simply trying to reduce noise on a mailing list.
That of course is not what I'm asking. Leave the user's email or don't, i just want the list's email listed first.
Are you asking for '[email protected]' to be listed before '[email protected]' when you hit 'Reply to All'? If so, I would think that this would be a feature of your email client, rather than the email list.
Email clients *should* have options that read 'reply' and 'reply to list', in addition to 'reply to all'. Some clients do, but most still don't.
Speaking of, what email client are you using?
Jeremy
A "reply to all" the original poster gets the message twice.
Are you asking for '[email protected]' to be listed before '[email protected]' when you hit 'Reply to All'? If so, I would think that this would be a feature of your email client, rather than the email list.
No i was asking if when i hit reply the To: box defaults to [email protected] and the CC: box default to the user address.
Email clients *should* have options that read 'reply' and 'reply to list', in addition to 'reply to all'. Some clients do, but most still don't.
Speaking of, what email client are you using?
I have Reply, and Reply to all. Using thunderbird 1.0.7 and greator
but like i said, Reply to all the recieving user gets the mail twice.
On 1/3/06, Jeremy Turner [email protected] wrote:
On the other hand, if the list is set to reply back to the list
itself, and I want to reply to a particular user and click 'Reply to All', I don't have the option of simply erasing '[email protected]' and going on with life. The Reply-To header munging eliminates their email address. Then I have to go back to the original email, copy the
That's only if the 'munging' REPLACES the original poster's address with the list address, as opposed to ADDING the list address to the individual address. The confusion over the difference between these two practices leads many people to oppose what is IMO the best way to manage a mailing list.
The whole point of an email list is group discussion. The default reply should include the list and the individual. With both addresses in the To and/or Cc fields, it's easy to delete one if desired. At a minimum, each user should have the option to set this behavior in the listserv software.
And before someone says RFC, they ought to fscking read them. The Reply-To header was specifically designed for purposes such as this.
On 1/12/06, Monty J. Harder [email protected] wrote:
address. The confusion over the difference between these two practices leads many people to oppose what is IMO the best way to manage a mailing list.
The whole point of an email list is group discussion. The default reply should include the list and the individual. With both addresses in the To and/or Cc fields, it's easy to delete one if desired. At a minimum, each user should have the option to set this behavior in the listserv software.
There you go again, espousing absolutes.
There may be mailing lists with different whole points. The culture of each mailing list is different. There are mailing lists where one is expected to post only announcement-level news, and discussion concerning particular announcements proceeds in off-list discussions, occasionally sharing the results of these caucuses with the main stream. For instance. With your definitions the point of such a list would be introducing people to have off-list discussions.
-- David L Nicol These hemigluteal shenannigans do not inspire effectiveness.
To answer the original quesion: I use gmail, which doesn't yet fix the problem for me. I suspect if enough of the other silent gmail users request the feature it will be addressed in the near future. Generally speaking I would prefer that the default my replies to be sent to the public mailing list, with as little fuss as possible. If I intend to engage in namecalling or discuss secret national security issues I'd just as soon make an effort to single my intended listeners out.
On 1/13/06, David Nicol [email protected] wrote:
There you go again, espousing absolutes.
There may be mailing lists with different whole points. The culture of each mailing list is different. There are mailing lists where one is expected to post only announcement-level news, and discussion concerning particular announcements proceeds in off-list discussions, occasionally sharing the results of these caucuses with the main stream. For instance. With your definitions the point of such a list would be introducing people to have off-list discussions.
I'm reasonably certain that everyone understands that the list is for linux and technological related purposes. With a reasonably good client the volume of this kind of mail we see on the list isn't overwhelming. I realize it might require a change in mailing list manager (quite the gamble given that the old one was broken for nearly a year), but I've seen listserv managers that will give subscribers plenty of options on how delivery is done, including the to and cc fields.
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 15:06 -0600, Justin Dugger wrote:
I'm reasonably certain that everyone understands that the list is for linux and technological related purposes. With a reasonably good client the volume of this kind of mail we see on the list isn't overwhelming. I realize it might require a change in mailing list manager (quite the gamble given that the old one was broken for nearly a year), but I've seen listserv managers that will give subscribers plenty of options on how delivery is done, including the to and cc fields.
We are currently using GNU Mailman. It is the gold standard in list manager software.
On 1/14/06, Jason Dewayne Clinton [email protected] wrote:
We are currently using GNU Mailman. It is the gold standard in list manager software.
meaning, it is obsolete? What is the petroleum standard in list manager software?
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:06:27PM -0600, Justin Dugger wrote:
I'm reasonably certain that everyone understands that the list is for linux and technological related purposes. With a reasonably good client the volume of this kind of mail we see on the list isn't overwhelming. I realize it might require a change in mailing list manager (quite the gamble given that the old one was broken for nearly a year), but I've seen listserv managers that will give subscribers plenty of options on how delivery is done, including the to and cc fields.
And with a reasonably good client, one can hit Reply-to-list.
In this context, the job of the mailing list manager is to enable client-side decisions, whether that of an original poster or of someone posting replies. The job of the client software is to help specify and carry out those client side decisions.
Who to reply to is a client-side decision. If the list manager preserves the original headers (eg, Reply-to:) and then adds any additional list-specific headers, a reasonable client (meaning both the software and the user) can decide quite easily and painlessly what they intend to do, and can then carry out that decision.
Munging Reply-to: tramples the transimission of an important piece of information--where the sender wants replies to go. Just because the sender asks it though doesn't mean the replier has to comply. Munging sharply limits the flexibility of your mailing lists. I gave up managing the amesfug mailing lists in part because of the stink that was kicked up over my decision (aborted upon my resignation) to remove Reply-to munging.
I was trying to set up different lists to complement the main list. Without the ability to send a message with the expectation that the Reply-to: will stay intact, that becomes infeasible. Realize Reply-to: isn't always the address of the sender--it can quite reasonably be some other address.
For example, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to send something to an -announce list while redirecting replies to an address to which non-subscribers (eg, newbies, installfest registrants, etc) can post without moderator intervention (like a newbie-handholding-volunteer with good spam filter, or an installfest coordinator, etc) Or to send email to the main list and redirect replies to an -executive list in which administrative garbage (like this thread) gets redirected. And so on.
The impulse to say "hey, these are computers, can't they be configured to do things the way we want them" is quite correct and understandable. The mistake is in which computer you pick to try to change and who you try to get to effect that change: The right one to change is the computer you manage, to make it work the way *you* want, and the right person to do it is you. Lists like this exist to help you with that.
But if you aren't willing to do that, if you want the list manager to break things for yet again another person, just so you can have your way . . . well, in the interests of amity, I should probably not say outright what I think of that.
I'd be interested to know how many pro-mungers are people who've run more than one active mailing list, versus folks whose only experience of lists is subscribing to lists managed by other people.
I wonder if one reason certain folks shy away from discussing "freedom" in the context of software involves its corollary: responsibility.
On 1/17/06, D. Joe [email protected] wrote:
For example, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to send something to an -announce list while redirecting replies to an address to which non-subscribers (eg, newbies, installfest registrants, etc) can post without moderator intervention (like a newbie-handholding-volunteer with good spam filter, or an installfest coordinator, etc) Or to send email to the main list and redirect replies to an -executive list in which administrative garbage (like this thread) gets redirected. And so on.
I send things to my announce list (very occasionally) by editing the message, including headers, in vim, then passing the message and the recipient list to my outbound MTA, rather than trying to e-mail something to the announce list, so for me these edge and corner cases of munging are irrelevant, at least to the announcement use case.
This thread is not administrative garbage -- it is a lucid discussion of current practice in a realm with multiple valid approaches. Most on-topic if you ask me. Which nobody did. Which didn't stop me. That's me for you.
-- David L Nicol Charlotte sometimes dreams a wall around herself
-
D. Joe -
David Nicol -
Jason Dewayne Clinton -
Jeremy Turner -
Justin Dugger -
Monty J. Harder -
Tom Bruno