9 Aug
2011
9 Aug
'11
3:12 p.m.
Can you, please, set Reply To: to go to the list, not the sender,
please? It's a trivial change, and I can't count the number of times
I've sent my reply to sender, not the list. Thanx!
9 Aug
9 Aug
3:21 p.m.
Hi Goran!
My mailer ass me, if I want to reply to all recipients and that works
nicely, always has done. But now, that you mention it, I didn't see a reply-to
field. The things you notice after such a long time...
bye
Julien
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Such Is Life: Very Intensely Adorable;
Frightening Absence Just Arriving, Reigns Disappeared, Ornate - flowers!
====== Find my music at ======
http://juliencoder.de/nama/music.html
.....................................
"If you live to be 100, I hope I live to be 100 minus 1 day,
so I never have to live without you." (Winnie the Pooh)
3:52 p.m.
On 08/09/2011 03:11 PM, Goran Mekic wrote:
Can you, please, set Reply To: to go to the list, not
the sender,
please? It's a trivial change, and I can't count the number of times
I've sent my reply to sender, not the list. Thanx!
The other way round (list instead of just sender) is worse, so making it
a clear decision to use Reply-to-list instead of Reply(-to-sender) is of
benefit. Clients with no or not obvious enough Reply-to-list are broken.
Also:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
--
Thorsten Wilms
thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
9:50 p.m.
On 09/08/2011, Thorsten Wilms <t_w_(a)freenet.de> wrote:
The other way round (list instead of just sender) is
worse, so making it
a clear decision to use Reply-to-list instead of Reply(-to-sender) is of
benefit. Clients with no or not obvious enough Reply-to-list are broken.
They may be broken, but they are probably also popular - Gmail, for
example. Sorry, but I'm not going to change my mail client for one
list, and I doubt many people are; and when it's a list like this one,
which is targeted at end users who may not care very much about
anything but getting music made, dogmatism on this point is a
user-hostile position.
Not that I necessarily disagree with the choice. If you want to reply
to list, reply-to-all does it, and that's available on just about any
mail client anywhere; whereas if reply-to-list were the default, you
need to cut & paste the individual's name. It's the use of an
ideological position to defend the choice, when there is a rational
non-dogmatic argument easily available, that pisses me off.
(What I'd prefer to see is the option on the user page, so that those
who want to reply to list by default can tick the checkbox and do so,
and those of us who have got used to hitting reply-to-all or have
clients with reply-to-list functionality can carry on as before.)
10:13 p.m.
On 08/09/2011 09:50 PM, Gwenhwyfaer wrote:
If you want to reply
to list, reply-to-all does it,
Reply-to-all gets the original senders address from where?
Oh, and receiving mail with both a list and my address in recipients as
result of a reply-to-all sucks, as it screws up filtering.
--
Thorsten Wilms
thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
10:22 p.m.
I'll just leave this here...
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
10 Aug
10 Aug
8:29 a.m.
On 09/08/2011, Thorsten Wilms <t_w_(a)freenet.de> wrote:
On 08/09/2011 09:50 PM, Gwenhwyfaer wrote:
Same place as reply-to gets it, I should imagine. (I can't shake the
feeling that you didn't think this question through.)
If you want to reply
to list, reply-to-all does it,
Reply-to-all gets the original senders address from where? Oh, and receiving mail with both a list and my address
in recipients as
result of a reply-to-all sucks, as it screws up filtering.
Oh. So my broken client is a problem that mustn't be worked around in
order to force a change, but your broken client is something that must
always be catered for by everyone else? There's a word for that kind
of thinking.
On the other hand, perhaps I shouldn't expect logic from someone who
attacks the one bit of a critical email which is basically in
agreement with them...
8:49 a.m.
On 08/10/2011 08:29 AM, Gwenhwyfaer wrote:
I meant in the case reply-to-munging happens, but oh please forgive me
for asking a question without thinking about it all that long.
If there are no list fields left in the header as is the case in your
email I'm replying to, a filter that works with any of those fields
can't work. Not a broken client, but broken processing beforehand.
Reply-to-all
gets the original senders address from where?
Same place as reply-to gets it, I should imagine. (I can't shake the
feeling that you didn't think this question through.) Oh, and
receiving mail with both a list and my address in recipients as
result of a reply-to-all sucks, as it screws up filtering.
Oh. So my broken client is a problem that mustn't be worked around in
order to force a change, but your broken client is something that must
always be catered for by everyone else? There's a word for that kind
of thinking. On the other hand, perhaps I shouldn't expect
logic from someone who
attacks the one bit of a critical email which is basically in
agreement with them...
You are needlessly aggressive and are getting personal.
--
Thorsten Wilms
thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
8:40 a.m.
Gwenhwyfaer wrote:
On 09/08/2011, Thorsten Wilms <t_w_(a)freenet.de>
wrote:
That would be cool, but might require rewriting the list server software.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
The other way round (list instead of just sender)
is worse, so making it
a clear decision to use Reply-to-list instead of Reply(-to-sender) is of
benefit. Clients with no or not obvious enough Reply-to-list are broken.
They may be broken, but they are probably also popular - Gmail, for
example. Sorry, but I'm not going to change my mail client for one
list, and I doubt many people are; and when it's a list like this one,
which is targeted at end users who may not care very much about
anything but getting music made, dogmatism on this point is a
user-hostile position.
Not that I necessarily disagree with the choice. If you want to reply
to list, reply-to-all does it, and that's available on just about any
mail client anywhere; whereas if reply-to-list were the default, you
need to cut & paste the individual's name. It's the use of an
ideological position to defend the choice, when there is a rational
non-dogmatic argument easily available, that pisses me off.
(What I'd prefer to see is the option on the user page, so that those
who want to reply to list by default can tick the checkbox and do so,
and those of us who have got used to hitting reply-to-all or have
clients with reply-to-list functionality can carry on as before.) 
5:18 a.m.
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 03:52:25PM +0200, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
On 08/09/2011 03:11 PM, Goran Mekic wrote:
The philosophy may or
may not be right. All I know is that I've had more
problems mistakenly replying privately when intending to reply to the
list than the other way around. Anyway, if we're to leave reply-to
alone, listservs probably shouldn't modify the subject line either.
Cheers,
S.M.
Can you, please, set Reply To: to go to the list,
not the sender,
please? It's a trivial change, and I can't count the number of times
I've sent my reply to sender, not the list. Thanx!
The other way round (list instead of just sender) is worse, so
making it a clear decision to use Reply-to-list instead of
Reply(-to-sender) is of benefit. Clients with no or not obvious
enough Reply-to-list are broken.
Also:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
8:45 a.m.
S. Massy wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 03:52:25PM +0200, Thorsten
Wilms wrote:
Proper email threading isn't done using the Subject line, it's done
using message headers that identify the specific message it is in reply
to. Unfortunately, the vendor of a very popular mail client broke THAT
in their mail clients ...
As usual with anything software related, it's probably better to do
things mindfully than rely on acquired neuromotor reflex.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
On 08/09/2011 03:11 PM, Goran Mekic wrote:
The philosophy may or
may not be right. All I know is that I've had more
problems mistakenly replying privately when intending to reply to the
list than the other way around. Anyway, if we're to leave reply-to
alone, listservs probably shouldn't modify the subject line either.
Cheers,
S.M. Can you, please, set Reply To: to go to the list,
not the sender,
please? It's a trivial change, and I can't count the number of times
I've sent my reply to sender, not the list. Thanx!
The other way round (list
instead of just sender) is worse, so
making it a clear decision to use Reply-to-list instead of
Reply(-to-sender) is of benefit. Clients with no or not obvious
enough Reply-to-list are broken.
Also:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
4888
days inactive
4889
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
10 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
david -
Goran Mekic -
Gwenhwyfaer -
Joe Hartley -
Julien Claassen -
S. Massy -
Thorsten Wilms