Users

users@lists.roundcube.net

4 participants
2921 discussions

RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
by Kaz Kylheku 18 Jan '14

18 Jan '14

Hi All, Anyone had the following problem? When replying to a new mailing list posting with "reply all", the reply goes only To: the mailing list. Expected behavior: To: the person, Cc: to the mailing list. The message in question has no Reply-To: header or anything of the sort. The relevant headers are just: From: user(a)gmail.com To: mailinglist(a)example.com I'm a subscriber of the mailing list. I hit Reply All, and I get only one address: "mailinglist(a)example.com". Unless there is a Reply-To: header, the From: address must be one of the To: recipients!

6 15

Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
by Charles Marcus 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

On 2014-01-17 1:04 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote: > Am 17.01.2014 18:58, schrieb Benny Pedersen: >> and RCU maillist now makes it impossible to reply private :( > really? look i did teh impossible! Really? You call replying to the OP, the list AND a 3rd party (me) 'private'?

3 5

Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
by Kaz Kylheku 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

On 17.01.2014 11:15, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 17.01.2014 20:12, schrieb Kaz Kylheku: >> On 17.01.2014 10:10, Charles Marcus wrote: >>> On 2014-01-17 1:04 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote: >>>> Am 17.01.2014 18:58, schrieb Benny Pedersen: >>>>> and RCU maillist now makes it impossible to reply private :( >>> >>>> really? look i did teh impossible! >>> >>> Really? You call replying to the OP, the list AND a 3rd party (me) >>> 'private'? >> >> Indeed, Reindl did not reply to the list, as claimed; or at least so >> I'm led to suspect, based on not having >> received the post you're replying to, keeping in mind that absence of >> evidence doesn't proves absence. (Perhaps >> there is a list posting, hitherto delayed as far as delivery to me.) >> >> Going with this hypothesis that there is no list posting, I'm guessing >> that Benny was on the To: and you were >> Cc:-d. Check the headers. >> >> However he did it, it was not done by using a simple Reply function, >> but by manual editing of the To: and Cc: > > correct - and that is far away from "impossible" > > there is no need to reply-all with a single click > there is no need to care about non-subscribers > there is no need to not reply only to the list and where you need it > you can do it manually > > period! There is no need for mail user agents; you can just telnet to port 25 of your upstream SMTP server, authenticate yourself (use a calculator if necessary for any challenge-response stuff). Then do your "mail to: ...", "rcpt from: ...", "data ..." and so on. Type the arbitrary headers you want and body, and off you go. Yes, a strict interpretation of a claim that something is "impossible" is obviously false.

1 0

need help configuring server to use managesieve plugin
by Steve Lindemann 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

when we click on "Filters" under "Settings" we get the message: "Unable to connect to server" (which makes perfect sense since it isn't listening (yet)). From what I've been able to find on configuring pigeonhole (sieve/managesieve) for dovecot I need to use either LDA or LMTP as the delivery agent. We use procmail as the mail delivery agent. Which brings me to my questions: Does anyone know a way to configure dovecot and roundcubemail to work with procmail and still be able to use the managesieve plugin for message filtering? If so, how? Or is there another option to do message filtering in roundcubemail that doesn't rely on installing pigeonhole for dovecot? What would that be? Or do I have to bite the bullet and stop using procmail? system summary: installed roundcubemail v0.9.5 using yum under centos 6.5 installed managesieve v6.2 from a tar ball using postfix for smtp using dovecot (w/pigeonhole) for pop/imap Thanks! -- Steve Lindemann, MSIS __ Network Administrator //\\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign Marmot Library Network \\// against HTML/RTF email, +1.970.242.3331 x116 //\\ vCards & M$ attachments http://www.marmot.org

2 1

RC does reply properly to mailing list post!
by Hartmut Steffin 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

I do not really understand what you discuss about, and this in such an emotional manner. It started about "Reply to Mailing list", but now you even fight about the "Reply" and "Reply all" buttons. This is ridiculous, as it is well defined and leaves NO ROOM for interpretation. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2 I repeat this in a short sentence each: Reply: You answer to "From" XOR "Reply-to", with Reply-to taking precedence. Reply all: Like reply, plus a copy to all (known) recipients of the original: To:, CC: (obviously not BCC:) So the creator of this thread got it wrong. NO BUTTON replies to the To: field, if it is overridden by the Reply-to: This is the sole purpose of the Reply-to field. If you answer to _this_ message, no matter how, I will receive my copy through the list, AND IN NO CASE directly! To do this, you had to add me to To: or CC: manually. This behaviour is WANTED by design of the RFC. ONLY IF I had put more addresses into the To or CC fields, you could make a difference with Reply or Reply all. Again this is WANTED by the RFC. To vary from this, would mean you create a mail client that violates RFC and works differently from ANY OTHER common sense program. It also is common practice for mail list programs, to put their address into the "Reply-to" field. Since decades I used literally hundreds of mailing-lists, and they actually all work the same. So again, this is not in your hands, thus not worth to fight about. Now let's have look at Reply-List. Because a "Reply to list" is NOT defined in a RFC, this is entirely up to the developers. They SHOULD just EXPLAIN what they really mean by it, so everybody KNOWS what happens beforehand. Everyone may make suggestions, this is an open world, though. And the developers will try to honour what they find feasible. My 2 cents In all programs I know of - that even have this button, a modern fashion - the Reply-List button honours the Reply-To field. Simple as that. I do not see a difference to Reply, and I cannot even imagine what else it should do, so I would agree to those who say this button is simply dispensable... But again, this may be my ignorance. It is entirely up to the developers to define AND DOCUMENT its behaviour. DOCUMENT your (mis-)feature properly, and everything is well. Close your ears to screaming and flaming. BUT AGAIN: DO NOT FIGHT OVER REPLY AND REPLY TO ALL. It is well defined and done correctly by RC! Cheers Hardy

3 4

Re: [RCU] RC does reply properly to mailing list post!
by Kaz Kylheku 16 Jan '14

16 Jan '14

On 16.01.2014 13:11, Reindl Harald wrote: > i get really tired of such amount of no clue > > *this* is the RFC for mailing-list-headers > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4021#section-2.1.35 [1] > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2369 [2] > > *these* are the list-headers of the roundcube list Those RFC's do not spell out what a mail client is supposed to do exactly with each of these fields. They just provide some information. > List-Id: Roundcube Users mailing list <users.lists.roundcube.net> These headers are not present in a direct reply to a mailing list posting; they are only present in the list copy. They can be useful in some obvious ways. For instance, suppose a lurker subscriber is tired of receiving all this off topic crap from the RCU list. The headers can be used in the mail client to provide an easy unsubscribe feature. When the software is displaying an e-mail with this header: List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/options/users>, It can generate some "click here to unsubscribe from the list" type UI or whatever, using the URL. This is useful because noobs often send postings like "please unsubscribe me from this list" to the list remailing address. In the past, before these headers, lists would put footers in every message with the unsubscribe info. (Yet somehow, people still can't find it.) We can remove these footers these days and rely on the headers. If we regard a mailing list generated message as an object, it's good for that object to have some standard properties related to the list and not ad-hoc text in a footer. At least in theory: the question is what properties for what purpose. The RFC proposes a bunch to "cover all the bases", but it's not clear how all of them would be used. Here is a nice use case for the List-Post: header. I could hack my mail client to notice when Reply-To: is set to the list address (Reply-To: contents match the List-Post: contents). This strongly indicates that the list is doing reply-to munging, and the client could automatically fix the situation by scrubbing out Reply-To:, and adding the list address to the Cc:. Without this header, it would be very hard to do this reliably. So these headers can be used to combat the Reply-To disease. What a nice thing! > *any* sane list on this planet have them Yes. For instance the list to which I was having trouble replying (in the root posting of the thread) has these headers too. The presence of these headers is not a magic potion that fixes broken client behaviors and rude mailing list behaviors.

1 0

No history in searchbox with Firefox anymore?
by Michael Heydekamp 16 Jan '14

16 Jan '14

When using IE, I always had a history in the Roundcube searchbox (the previous search terms were displayed and selectable upon typing). Now, with FF 26, this function is gone, and I didn't find any setting to get it back. Any idea? Is this an RC or an FF issue? Cheers, -- Michael Heydekamp Co-Admin freexp.de Düsseldorf/Germany

4 6

Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
by Ben Schmidt 15 Jan '14

15 Jan '14

> so there is no solution satisfy all I agree entirely. > finally *that* is no valid reason for mail duplicates Equally, it is not a valid reason to filter them. We need to recognise people and communities are different, that both behaviours are useful, and valid, and that people who want one kind of behaviour or another are not stupid. >>> the reason someone has sieve filters for lists is that he want >>> filter out list-traffic and not mix it with business email >>> which has a completly different priority in read >> >> Except if a list reply is directly relevant to him, in which case he >> hopes, or even asks, the list to explicitly CC him on any replies so >> they come to his inbox as higher priority mail. > > then he knows the subject and filters *that* thread > so what If he does this regularly, this is a high-effort option he probably does not want to take. It's possible, but it's suboptimal. There is nothing wrong with him wanting to do it differently. >>>> In Thunderbird, the "Reply All" button turns into a "Reply List" >>>> button when a mailing list is detected >>> >>> no, i have three buttons >>> >>> * reply >>> * reply-all >>> * reply-list >>> >>> guess why - because it are 3 different actions and reasons >> >> Screen shot attached for your examination. >> >> I don't know why it is different; maybe because my screen is smaller >> than yours, or because the platform is different > > because i take the time to configure my software > in mozilla products you can configure your toolbar simple by drag&drop Well that tells us absolutely nothing about what I wrote about, which was the trends in mail clients, does it? I agree with you though, it makes sense for them to be separate. I usually use the keyboard shortcuts, which are separate. Best regards, Ben.

1 0

Re: [RCU] RC not replying properly to mailing list post.
by Kaz Kylheku 15 Jan '14

15 Jan '14

Wake up and look at this: Reply-To: Roundcube Users mailing list <users(a)lists.roundcube.net> The RCU mailing list stamps this idiocy on everything that passes through it. The mailing list for mail-related software is doing Reply-To munging. What's wrong with this picture? That explains why the same people think it's a good idea to have a "Reply List" button. On 14.01.2014 17:02, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 15.01.2014 01:46, schrieb Kaz Kylheku: > >> I don't agree with "Reply All" doing a "Reply List" if a mailing list is detected. The proper way to reply to a mailing list is "Reply All". Which means ... *There is absolutely no need for a "Reply List" misfeature.* *For users who really want this, the button should be called "Click here to reply in a moronic way if you think that RFC stands for some sort of fried chicken franchise".* > > WHICH RFC ARE YOU REFERING? > THERE ARE *MANY* IN CASE OF EMAIL STANDARDS > YOU ARE THE MORON! Someone who thinks that RFC stands for some kind of R. Fried Chicken is obviously ignorant of all of them.

2 1

Horde Groupware migration to Roundcube
by zoney1409 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

Hi all, I have a large Horde installation (several million mailboxes, contacts, rules, etc.) and would like to migrate to Roundcube 0.9.5 , does anyone have any suggestions for moving the contacts (turba) and rules (ingo) en masse ? Thanks very much -- View this message in context: http://roundcube-webmail.10982.n7.nabble.com/Horde-Groupware-migration-to-R… Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

3 3

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

Users