ANNOUNCE: List Reply-To change
Mon Nov 18 14:38:00 2002
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:email@example.com]
> 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:
> > >
> > 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I regard this page as way-out-of-date: They prommise to update and they have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,
> 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.