Hi all,
linuxtv.org is operating within normal parameters ;-)
We decided to replace the mailing list manager Ecartis with Mailman. If you want to change your settings go to: http://linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
In case you have trouble accessing CVS, or other problems, please send mail to admin@linuxtv.org.
I read some people here are unhappy because of changed List-Ids or lost personal settings; I'm sorry about that, but we're too lame to get that right...
Johannes
I read some people here are unhappy because of changed List-Ids or lost personal settings; I'm sorry about that, but we're too lame to get that right...
Hi Johannes,
Could you please change the following mailman-option "Where are replies to list messages directed? .." to "This list" (General options). It adds the reply-to header to the message with the list-address. F*cked up mail-clients like Outlook don't handle the replies correctly, and they try to reply directly to the sender, instead of replying to the list..
Regards,
Rene
Rene Hertell wrote:
I read some people here are unhappy because of changed List-Ids or lost personal settings; I'm sorry about that, but we're too lame to get that right...
Hi Johannes,
Could you please change the following mailman-option "Where are replies to list messages directed? .." to "This list" (General options). It adds the reply-to header to the message with the list-address. F*cked up mail-clients like Outlook don't handle the replies correctly, and they try to reply directly to the sender, instead of replying to the list..
Doesn't it have a reply-all button, which sets the To&CC correctly? Or is the "correct" handling something different?
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Anssi Hannula (AH) wrote:
AH> > Hi Johannes, AH> > AH> > Could you please change the following mailman-option "Where are AH> > replies to list messages directed? .." to "This list" (General AH> > options). It adds the reply-to header to the message with the AH> > list-address. F*cked up mail-clients like Outlook don't handle the AH> > replies correctly, and they try to reply directly to the sender, AH> > instead of replying to the list.. AH> AH> Doesn't it have a reply-all button, which sets the To&CC correctly? AH> Or is the "correct" handling something different?
generally speaking, there are two categories of people with regard to the _wanted_ behaviour of the reply-buttons anf mailing list posts:
1. using "reply" key/button sents a mail to the ML only. (this _needs_ the reply-to: field to be set to the ML address)
2. using "reply" sends to the sender only (this _needs_ the reply-to: field to be _not_ set to the ML address)
people from the first category _rarely_ want write a private reply, since it is about a discussion on a mailing list. in the _very_rare_ occasions they want to write a private reply, they use "reply all" and then remove the ML address from the To:/CC: field.
people from the second category always use the "reply all" button/key when they reply to the ML, sending a copy to the sender as well.
Both categories have (dis)advantages! (I am not going to list them here)
I, for myself, belong to the first category. So I'd prefer the reply-to: field to be set to the ML-address.
@ML-Admins: Is it possible to have a per-user setting in the ML-software, which enables the reply-to: field for all posts sent to that user?
That would definitely stop this discussion and be the best solution for all.
Sergei
Sergei Haller wrote: ...
AH> > Could you please change the following mailman-option "Where are AH> > replies to list messages directed? .." to "This list" (General AH> > options).
...
@ML-Admins: Is it possible to have a per-user setting in the ML-software, which enables the reply-to: field for all posts sent to that user?
I believe that the VDR mailing list is run as a courtesy to Klaus in recognition of his outstanding achievements with his VDR project.
To me, it would seem only logical to simply configure mailman according to Klaus' wishes.
Carsten.
Sergei Haller wrote:
generally speaking, there are two categories of people with regard to the _wanted_ behaviour of the reply-buttons anf mailing list posts:
[snip]
There is another way of defining the two categories: - people who use a MUA that supports mailing lists - people who don't
Did anyone ever consider filing a bug report or feature request for a "list reply" function for their favourite mail client?
@ML-Admins: Is it possible to have a per-user setting in the ML-software, which enables the reply-to: field for all posts sent to that user?
It's not possible for performance reasons. There is just one message with a large number of recepients per posting, so one cannot have customized messages for everyone. Currently 1431 people are subscribed to the vdr list.
Anyway, as the vdr list used to have Reply-To: the list, I enabled it again, even if I think it is wrong (the mailman admin interface even states: "Where are replies to list messages directed? Poster is /strongly/ recommended for most mailing lists."). Luckily mutt has a ignore_list_reply_to config option...
Johannes
Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
... Anyway, as the vdr list used to have Reply-To: the list, I enabled it again, even if I think it is wrong (the mailman admin interface even states: "Where are replies to list messages directed? Poster is /strongly/ recommended for most mailing lists."). Luckily mutt has a ignore_list_reply_to config option...
I don't mean to further heat up this discussion, just one question: isn't the most reasonable way to reply to a mailing list posting to the *list*? What sense does it make to reply only privately to a ML posting? Sure, in some rare cases one may want to get into contact privately with a poster, but in the vast majority of cases replies should go to the list.
Personally I don't want to have to think about whether I have to reply to the sender or to the list - I just hit the Reply button and want the message to go where it makes sense, which in case of a mailing list is the *list*.
Since I have set up my procmailrc to insert Reply-to headers for the mailing lists I'm subscribed to, there is no real problem for me. All I want to avoid is that people send messages to me privately _and_ to the list.
Klaus
There is another way of defining the two categories:
- people who use a MUA that supports mailing lists
- people who don't
Unfortunately I'm stuck with Outlook because it is for the moment the only app that I can sync my pda, mobile etc. without too much trouble.. I would gladly switch to whatever MUA if there would be one that can handle those things.
Outlook is simply a big piece of bloatware that I want to get rid of as soon as possible (I hope that the mozilla calendar project will be stable enough to be used ASAP)!
Did anyone ever consider filing a bug report or feature request for a "list reply" function for their favourite mail client?
I did that a few times during the last 3-4 years, but that is not helping at all.. As everyone know, Micro$hit is busy fixing security-issues instead of listening to user-requests...
Anyway, as the vdr list used to have Reply-To: the list, I enabled it again,
Thank You! :-)
Rene
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
I don't mean to further heat up this discussion, just one question: isn't the most reasonable way to reply to a mailing list posting to the *list*? What sense does it make to reply only privately to a ML posting? Sure, in some rare cases one may want to get into contact privately with a poster, but in the vast majority of cases replies should go to the list.
It depends on the list's purpose and policy.
Personally I don't want to have to think about whether I have to reply to the sender or to the list - I just hit the Reply button and want the message to go where it makes sense, which in case of a mailing list is the *list*.
Funny, for me it's just the opposite. I decide what I want and then hit the appropriate button, and all I want is that my mail client does what it's told to do.
IMHO Nothing is worse than if a private reply accidentally goes to the list. Not inserting Reply-To: means protecting people from making this mistake. (As I mentioned mutt can be configured to ignore Reply-To: in mailing-list postings, so there is no problem for *me*.)
Since I have set up my procmailrc to insert Reply-to headers for the mailing lists I'm subscribed to, there is no real problem for me. All I want to avoid is that people send messages to me privately _and_ to the list.
Currently Mailman is configured to avoid dupes.
Johannes
linuxtv@hertell.com(Rene Hertell) 14.02.05 09:00
Once upon a time "Rene Hertell " shaped the electrons to say...
I read some people here are unhappy because of changed List-Ids or lost personal settings; I'm sorry about that, but we're too lame to get that right...
Hi Johannes,
Could you please change the following mailman-option "Where are replies to list messages directed? .." to "This list" (General options). It adds the reply-to header to the message with the list-address. F*cked up mail-clients like Outlook
Emm,AFAIK it's the nice MS Exchange Server of old kind...not the client.
don't handle the replies correctly, and they try to reply directly to the sender, instead of replying to the list..
Emm, "Out of office" never belongs to the "list". maybe the "list owner" (=return path).
I would not worry if i got one "Out of office"" for my mailing, it i mail. But i would worry if the list is littered with an ""Out of office" for every post...every someone changed his "Out of office" state..
Rainer
anssi.hannula@gmail.com(Anssi Hannula) 14.02.05 15:53
Doesn't it have a reply-all button, which sets the To&CC correctly?
"TO&CC" is annyoing!
Because nobody can't mail to the list without being subscriped, it's completely senseless to generate a "CC" for him. It wastes only his space and time, because he might think, that's a personal mail and he might try to answer personally... (Not everybiody is able too read mail headers).
Please don't do "group replies" anymore. It's obsolete.
Reply to the list! NOT the original poster! So ot's impoatant to have the right "reply to": Else the list will die because too many simply "reply" to the OP...
Or is the "correct" handling something different?
That's an other problem.
Rainer
Rainer Zocholl wrote:
linuxtv@hertell.com(Rene Hertell) 14.02.05 09:00
Once upon a time "Rene Hertell " shaped the electrons to say...
F*cked up mail-clients like Outlook don't handle the replies correctly, and they try to reply directly to the sender, instead of replying to the list..
Emm, "Out of office" never belongs to the "list". maybe the "list owner" (=return path).
I would not worry if i got one "Out of office"" for my mailing, it i mail. But i would worry if the list is littered with an ""Out of office" for every post...every someone changed his "Out of office" state..
The out of office replies are probably because mailinglist has reportedly "forgot" user options, so that people who previuosly had a "no mail" -option set, now receive the ml messages.
anssi.hannula@gmail.com(Anssi Hannula) 14.02.05 19:43
Rainer Zocholl wrote:
linuxtv@hertell.com(Rene Hertell) 14.02.05 09:00
Once upon a time "Rene Hertell " shaped the electrons to say...
F*cked up mail-clients like Outlook don't handle the replies correctly, and they try to reply directly to the sender, instead of replying to the list..
Emm, "Out of office" never belongs to the "list". maybe the "list owner" (=return path).
I would not worry if i got one "Out of office"" for my mailing, it i mail. But i would worry if the list is littered with an ""Out of office" for every post...every someone changed his "Out of office" state..
The out of office replies are probably because mailinglist has reportedly "forgot" user options, so that people who previuosly had a "no mail" -option set, now receive the ml messages.
ACK. Or maybe something in the from/return/reply path/ changes so the filter did not work anymore.
Rainer---<=====> Vertraulich // // <=====>--------------ocholl, Kiel, Germany ------------
I demand that Rene Hertell may or may not have written...
[snip]
Did anyone ever consider filing a bug report or feature request for a "list reply" function for their favourite mail client?
I did that a few times during the last 3-4 years, but that is not helping at all.. As everyone know, Micro$hit is busy fixing security-issues instead of listening to user-requests...
You appear to have misspelled "creating" there. ;-)
[snip]
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Johannes Stezenbach (JS) wrote:
JS> Anyway, as the vdr list used to have Reply-To: the list, JS> I enabled it again,
thank you.
Sergei
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Since I have set up my procmailrc to insert Reply-to headers for the mailing lists I'm subscribed to, there is no real problem for me. All I want to avoid is that people send messages to me privately _and_ to the list.
It depends (for me) mainly on list traffic. on a massive list like LKML I want people to CC: me so I dont have to wade through the list.
on a smaller list like this on I prefer people to reply to the list.
-
Anssi Hannula -
Carsten Koch -
Darren Salt -
Ian Molton -
Johannes Stezenbach -
Klaus Schmidinger -
Rainer Zocholl -
Rene Hertell -
Sergei Haller