Identifying linux-il messages

[Ira Abramov]

Quoting Shachar Shemesh, from the post of Wed, 11 Feb:
> I'm not sure what those "mutt supported headers are".

In mutt, I mapped "r" to reply, and "L" for "reply to list".
the L option overrides reply-to, btw, which is cool.
Behavior is set by the muttrc and certain headers

more here:
http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-4.html#ss4.8
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt
http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html


Also google for:
* "reply to list"
* header Mail-Reply-To
* header Mail-Followup-To

Supported in EZ-mlm since (I think) day 1, and apparently it's now
supported directly and via extensions in Evolution, Thunderbird and
maybe others. 

However, unsupported (not even scriptable, I think) in Gmail without
Gmail labs' intervention.

(I have a long list of ideas for those guys, I'll add it in)

>
> Anyway, I've given some thought to the "why is it not a built-in  
> feature" question. I think the "reply-to" field was deemed too dangerous  

yeah, yeah, I hate it too. I meant, why are the preferences of headers,
subject tags et cetera not available as personal settings.

> the subject munging is meaningless to perform on a  
> per-subscriber basis, as it will get right back when people hit "reply".

Indeed. to support this, mailman should remove the tag before processing
a post and add it back when the post is sent to the subscribers. the
obvious problem is WHERE to add the tag back. add it at the beginning
and you break thread detection in clients. add it at the end, and some
mail clients will chop it off if the subject is too long, and screw up
thread detection again. have Mailman follow the thread to do the smart
thing and you have a whole new can of worms... Blarg!@#$%

ok, forget it. headers is the way. metadata is always better than
guessing games.

>>
>> * Ob: Social hacking - start adding XIL or [XIL] to every post and reply
>>   here, and see if it catches on, forcing the listmaster to add it
>>   permanently :-)
>>   
> Of course, once you suggest that, you also have to take into account the  
> possibility that people will NOT catch on to this. Would you then say  
> that it would force the yay-sayers to accept its absence? :-)

naturally I take it into account. I said "see if it catches on"
suggesting it may not.


-- 
The heart of the matter
Ira Abramov
http://ira.abramov.org/email/