The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started

[Shachar Shemesh]

Micha Feigin wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:06:55 +0200
> Shachar Shemesh <shachar at shemesh.biz> 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.

Shachar
> Thanks
>
>   
>> 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 at cs.huji.ac.il 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.
>
>   
>> Shachar
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linux-il mailing list
>> Linux-il at cs.huji.ac.il
>> http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-il mailing list
> Linux-il at cs.huji.ac.il
> http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
>