Re: The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started
Micha Feigin wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:06:55 +0200
> Shachar Shemesh <shachar@...> wrote:
>> I could understand the use for "reply to list" when some people would
>> get double the emails against their wishes. This, however, is no longer
>> an issue with most modern mailing list managers.
> Well, at the moment I'm getting double emails from this list for this whole
> thread and for some reason when I post to the list I get a message that my mail
> is waiting moderator approval since I'm not registered, but still sends me all
> list mails, doesn't seem to unregister me and registering again doesn't seem to
> do any good either. Any ideas or a list moderator out there that can check my
> list status to try and see where it is wrong?
Please forward all copies you get of this email. Make sure the forward
is with all the headers. I'll try to have a look at it.
>> Here is the situation as I see it:
>> Reply to all: You respect each individual's preferences regarding how
>> many copies they want to receive.
>> Reply: You want to send a private reply, only to the sender (impossible
>> when the list has "reply to list")
>> And the non-standard buttons
>> Reply to sender: Only makes sense in order to override lists with the
>> broken "reply to list" header.
>> Reply to list: You force people like me to get only one copy against my
>> wish, and you are proud of it.
>> To me, it seems obvious that the polite thing to do, especially on a
>> list that has no-dupes support, is to do "reply to all" by default.
>> Since I think this is the right default for private communication as
>> well for the reasons stated above, I don't see a problem. I am, however,
>> open to the possibility that I'm wrong, if anyone wishes to enlighten me.
>>> At least with claws mail, in addition to the list, if you have a reply to
>>> address it also adds that to the cc field, don't know if others do the same.
>> Yes, that's precisely what "reply to all" does. Put the original sender
>> in the "to" and everyone else in the "cc".
>>> On the other hand, I've noticed that there are two from fields at the
>>> moment, one of the original poster and the other:
>>> >From linux-il-bounces@... Wed Jan 28 18:04:20 2009
>> First, I didn't see that. Second, what you quote is not a header. An
>> SMTP header has a colon (:) between header and data. What you are
>> quoting is the SMTP MTAs log line, and is ignored by any sane mail client.
> Looked at the source, I'm seeing the same from field twice, probably doesn't
> make a difference, just pointed it out in case it does. It's been some time
> since I dealt with the smtp protocol so I don't remember the specifics.
>> Linux-il mailing list
> Linux-il mailing list
Linux-il mailing list