ANNOUNCE: List Reply-To change

["Beerse, Corné"]

Yep, reply to all, since that's what the list now asks for. I'd like you all
to participate in this message storm.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc MERLIN [mailto:marc@merlins.org]
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:30:02AM +0100, "Beerse, Corni" wrote:
> > Is it already changed, did you a reply to all or something
> else phony?
>
> You can answer that by looking at the headers of the mail.
> I do not reply to a list with 'r' ever, I always reply to
> all. If I were
> to try  to figure  out which  list does munging  and which
> one doesn't,
> that's be very  confusing to change my reply  habits accordingly.
> Reply should  always go to the  author of the Email  (only).
> I get upset
> when a  list tries to hijack  a personal reply  and sent it
> to  the list
> (which is what reply-to does), so I have my system ignore it
> for lists.

So it was you that spoils the bandwidth.

>
> > > Please, before anyone continues to argue, go read:
> > >
> http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=6693&group_id=1
> >
> > Do you have more of those documents? It starts with "The
> content within this
> > document is not necessarily up-to-date. Please watch for an
> updated version
> > of this document to appear in coming weeks. (2002-05-18)".
> I regard it is
> > now way beyond the comming weeks after 18 may 2002 (25 weeks ago...)
>
> Please  ignore that. The  reasons  for  the above  message
> are not  too
> relevant to the content and would bore people.

No, if those messages are on webpages, I always take them serious, specially
if they are at the top so everyone starts reading them.

I regard this page as way-out-of-date: They prommise to update and they have
not so I expect them to have change thoughts. (or have they put the update
at an other location?)

> For that  matter, I  promised I  would not spam  the list
> about endless
> discussions  on this,  so  I won't,  sorry but  I'll  skip
> arguing  your
> points, trust me it could have gone back and forth a while.
> (but  if  you wanted  to  Email  me  and continue  privately,
>  honestly,
> outside of technical  questions on removing dupes for
> instance, I'm not
> interested: you may be debating this for the first time, but
> on my side,
> I've lost  count, and I've  seem this  debate and
> participated  here and
> there for more than 5 years now...)

Are you only 5 years on the net? Have you moved in after M$ B.Gates? That
explanes a lot.

>
> > I like to add here, in the current world of mail spam, I
> don't like my email
> > address to be send to everyone on every list. If it is
> possible I'd like my
> > address stripped from the header if it goes trough a
> maillist. It would at
> > least be nice if it is an option.
>
> If you get  Cced on an answer, it's typically  because you
> posted first,
> so you've already been harvested. moot point.
> (that  said,  mailman  2.1  beta  can remove  you  from  the
> Cc  before
> rebroadcasting the mail to the list, but that's only to avoid
> an endless
> growing Cc list, not for spam reasons)

That's still in beta, the maillistserver does (should) not use beta
software. Then, who handles the option?

>
> > > With this version of mailman it  means the sender may get
> two copies
> > > of  the  answer,  but  there  are some  ways  to  solve
> this  minor
> > > inconvenience (see  the URL  above) and a  mailman
> upgrade  can take
> > > care of that too.
> >
> > All  involving mangling  the  subscription list  on  a
> per-mail  base,
> > resulting in loss  of messages, mainly to  addresses
> directly involved
> > in the discussion taking place. Hence better not do such things.
>
> No. The options are:
> 1) you remove dupe messages by Message Id on your side

You know what I have to do to handle messages headers with M$OutLook? (yep,
I'm forced to use that at my employers, sorry)

> 2) the list sees you are already Cced and doesn't send you
> the list copy
>    (mailman 2.1 beta does that)

That is not acceptable: messages are (a.o.) moved to mailboxes by the
origionator of the message. There is a sure difference between direct from
the origionator and by means of the maillist.

>
> > I know situations where it is not allowed (and in the
> system restricted) to
> > send messages to just anyone on the internet. Target
> addresses of mail
>
> In 8 years of being a sysadmin, I've never ever seen or heard of that.
> Not to say it can't exist, but it surely isn't widespread.
> (and just to say I have a  little experience with mailing
> lists and that
> at least I know the  technicalities behind this discussion,
> I've admined
> 25,000 lists  with about  300,000 subscribers,  and
> contributed  code to mailman)

For example, a friend of mine, she is working at a lawyer-office. All mail
is scanned for legal matter. The first step is automatic, based on the
addressees. There is a white-list and it must pass for all addresses or it
will not pass at all.


CBee