On 16/01/14 7:59 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 15.01.2014 21:43, schrieb Ben Schmidt:
Another is that sometimes people have direct copies delivered to their inbox, but copies via the list filtered into a folder. Such users want both copies.
the opposite is true such users *do not* want both copies
I am such a user, and I want both.
It is true, though, that some users do not want both. Such users, though, set up their filters differently--any mail *including* the list address, not just delivered via the list, will go into the list's folder for those users.
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.
Actually, the user who wants these duplicate copies can make it work that way even if the MLM filters the mail, too, by copying any list mail explicitly addressed to them into their inbox.
But either way, it relies on list users using Reply All so that he gets both the list copy and the direct copy. This requires the mail client to offer that feature, and it also requires the list users to have the culture of doing this, or responding to the user's request to do it.
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.
Ben.
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 08:35 +1100, Ben Schmidt wrote:
On 16/01/14 7:59 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 15.01.2014 21:43, schrieb Ben Schmidt:
Another is that sometimes people have direct copies delivered to their inbox, but copies via the list filtered into a folder. Such users want both copies.
the opposite is true such users *do not* want both copies
Another rare occasion where I agree with Harald, it annoys me greatly that people find the need to reply directly as well as a list, I mean we *are* all on the same list, so we will *all* , yes, including intended recipient, get the post, do people think that sending it directly will get read sooner? Not always, this account for instance sorts by list, anything not associate with a list-id or x-been-there, gets sent to an x-blah folder right at the end, so my inbox stays pretty empty, and your direct messages may not get read for weeks, as I liken it to a second spam folder :)
in some cases, some lit software can be configured to not send a list post to you if you are in the To/CC field, this becomes extra steps to reply to list, I have to drag and drop the darn message into the list "folder" where I prefer to keep list posts for history until I decide to shrink it.
Its also a pet hate of mine where lists are not configured to reply-list only, Thomas has correctly set this one up, pitty a few more didn't follow his lead.
I am such a user, and I want both.
Why? most mailing list software configured correctly with MDA's send just as quick as a direct, the list server I run, (not now but a few years ago) ran a usenet-mailing list gw, some of those lists had 5K members, and a post would take all of 25 seconds to be sent to everyone. so, I fail to see the point of why you want two copies of the same thing, you either send a reply to hte list for all to see, or, send a direct message to the poster if your comments are not fit for general (list) consumption, not both.
On 16.01.2014 16:02, Noel Butler wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 08:35 +1100, Ben Schmidt wrote:
On 16/01/14 7:59 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 15.01.2014 21:43, schrieb Ben Schmidt:
Another is that sometimes people have direct copies delivered to their inbox, but copies via the list filtered into a folder. Such users want both copies.
the opposite is true such users *do not* want both copies
Another rare occasion where I agree with Harald, it annoys me greatly that people find the need to reply directly as well as a list, I mean we *are* all on the same list, so we will *all* , yes, including intended recipient, get the post, do people think that sending it directly will get read sooner?
This is not the consequence of anyone's "need".
Do not assume that people are doing something you don't like or understand out of their "need".
The vast majority of MUA software on the planet has only Reply and Reply All. Those users are using Reply All, so as to keep it a group discussion.
"Reply All" has a standard, decades old behavior, and mailing list robots are designed around the assumption that it is used.
The assumption that "we are in the same list" only holds when all the recipients of the message are subscribers of the list (because it rejects posts from nonsubscribers). Such a policy is made necessary by spammers. Traditionally, a subscriber of a mailing list is not one who wishes to post to it, but one who wishes to be in the loop on all new postings.
There currently isn't any fully reliable way for the MUA to know who is a subscriber and who isn't; only the list robot knows.
Reply All does the right thing in all circumstances. Mailing list robots know that it's being used and process things intelligently.
The new-fangled Reply List is nonstandard, and makes assumptions about how lists are configured. As Ben Schmidt has noted, it is useful in specific circumstances, not as a "go to" button for replying to any posting on any kind of mailing list.
Not always, this account for instance sorts by list, anything not associate with a list-id or x-been-there, gets sent to an x-blah folder right at the end, so my inbox stays pretty empty, and your direct messages may not get read for weeks, as I liken it to a second spam folder
There are two good ways to sort list-related discussions into folders. If the list postings have some subject line tag like [RCU], you can use that.
A way which does not rely on this subject line hack is this: have your rule look for the address of the list in the Cc: or To: In other words, whenever a given list is one of the recipients of a message, that message can be deemed as being related to that list and shunted to the appropriate folder.
This works great for both list replies and direct replies.
Yes, if you use list-specific headers to do your sorting, something will happen that you might not necessarily like: direct replies go to your inbox, and only list copies to the list folder.
But, this may also be why someone like Ben Schmidt (for whom I obviously cannot speak) may want those two copies. He might want the robot-generated list copies to go to the list folder for reference, where all the threads are intact in their entirety, and those messages in which he is personally mentioned to go to his Inbox, where they get his attention immediately.
He can delete the Inbox copies after reading them and replying to some of them, yet have the discussion intact in the appropriate folder.
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 16:40 -0800, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 16.01.2014 16:02, Noel Butler wrote:
The vast majority of MUA software on the planet has only Reply and Reply All. Those users are using Reply All, so as to keep it a group discussion.
Where did I say we needed another reply-x_function?
"Reply All" has a standard, decades old behavior, and mailing list robots are designed around the assumption that it is used.
Where did I say it wasn't?
you seem to be pretty crash hot at putting words into peoples mouths when they did say no such thing, keep on track with my comments and not the comments of others when replying to me, else dont waste your time, or mine, trying to force yor options down others throat when it is not the content I brought to the discussion.
The assumption that "we are in the same list" only holds when all the recipients of the message are subscribers of the list (because it rejects posts
and if they are not, they become irrelevant (another pet hate, carry out *general discussions* across multiple lists)
Reply All does the right thing in all circumstances. Mailing list robots know that it's being used and process things intelligently.
Never said it didnt, there you go again...
The new-fangled Reply List is nonstandard, and makes assumptions about how lists are configured. As Ben Schmidt has noted, it is useful in specific
I made no comment on reply-list, so I wont bother entertaining you with any response on that.
Not always, this account for instance sorts by list, anything not associate with a list-id or x-been-there, gets sent to an x-blah folder right at the end, so my inbox stays pretty empty, and your direct messages may not get read for weeks, as I liken it to a second spam folder :)
There are two good ways to sort list-related discussions into folders. If the list postings have some subject line tag like [RCU], you can use that.
Good grief, who uses subject for filtering in 2014, yes, in 1994 I did, like most, use it, but spammers quickly learned and adopted, so we adapted and passed that over decades ago.
On 16.01.2014 17:27, Noel Butler wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 16:40 -0800, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 16.01.2014 16:02, Noel Butler wrote:
The vast majority of MUA software on the planet has only Reply and Reply All. Those users are using Reply All, so as to keep it a group discussion.
Where did I say we needed another reply-x_function?
"Reply All" has a standard, decades old behavior, and mailing list robots are designed around the assumption that it is used.
Where did I say it wasn't?
you seem to be pretty crash hot at putting words into peoples mouths when they did say no such thing, keep on track with my comments and not the comments of others when replying to me, else dont waste your time, or mine, trying to force yor options down others throat when it is not the content I brought to the discussion.
Okay, whoa! Sorry.
I certainly don't want to put words into people's mouths; I almost think you're confusing me with out belligerent friend.
Rewinding, then, and returning then to your original comment:
NB> [I]t annoys me greatly that people find the need to reply directly NB> as well as a list, I mean we *are* all on the same list, so we will *all* NB> yes, including intended recipient, get the post, do people think that NB> sending it directly will get read sooner?
It should perhaps have asked: what is it that you suspect these people who have this "need" are doing, exactly? I mean, step by step.
My intent above was not to insinuate that you said something you didn't say but only to hypothesize how people end up doing that.
(Are you talking about people actually posting something twice to different destinations? Or replying to you directly and CC'ing the list?)
You said that in response to
RH> > the opposite is true such users *do not* want both copies
NB> Another rare occasion where I agree with Harald,
But these two copies are simply the consequence of someone doing Reply All (which Mr. Harald thinks is a bad idea, at least in connection with mailing lists) and the list neglecting to filter out the duplication. So that is where I got the idea that you don't agree with Reply All for mailing list discussions, in expressing the agreement above! See?
The assumption that "we are in the same list" only holds when all the recipients of the message are subscribers of the list (because it rejects posts
and if they are not, they become irrelevant (another pet hate, carry out *general discussions* across multiple lists)
I don't quite see what you mean there. It's possible to have an on-topic discussion that isn't cross-posted, which involves decently behaving non-subscribers, right?
(To spare you future bother, I hereby acknowledge that you never said it *wasn't* possible and I'm not putting words in your mouth.)
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 18:24 -0800, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
NB> [I]t annoys me greatly that people find the need to reply directly NB> as well as a list, I mean we *are* all on the same list, so we will *all* NB> yes, including intended recipient, get the post, do people think that NB> sending it directly will get read sooner?
It should perhaps have asked: what is it that you suspect these people who have this "need" are doing, exactly? I mean, step by step.
Dont quite get you there, but its pretty simple, we are on a list, having an open discussion, if you reply to me, or I, you, then it should go by the list, on this list very simple, its configured correctly by having reply-to set, to the list, problem does not exist, if you reply, or reply-all, at least when I do in evolution, it only sends to lists. some clients and free mail providers, it sends to list, and to the author on reply-all evolution does allow reply to list if I hit control-l for those brain dead lists that do not set reply-to headers, if in that case you hit reply-all to get it to list, yes, else reply, direct to sender.
AFAIC, list posts are like usenet, if you partake in a public discussion then your reply should go public, you may give an answer to a real sticky problem, no point in only one person getting the answer, it should be on-list so others are aware, and also it can be archived so others with same problem in future can find answer. If you think your reply is not fit for list, or, you may want information you are not willing to make public (like for example your domain name, or a hostname) then it is acceptable to reply directly with that information, but any follows afterwards, should be back onlist.
No one would be having this discussion if list owners configured their lists correctly (as Thomas has done here with users@)
RH> > the opposite is true such users *do not* want both copies
NB> Another rare occasion where I agree with Harald,
But these two copies are simply the consequence of someone doing Reply All (which Mr. Harald thinks is a bad idea, at least in connection with mailing lists) and the list neglecting to filter out the duplication.
This is more the clients fault (as above), and also agree, user laziness
So that is where I got the idea that you don't agree with Reply All for mailing list discussions, in expressing the agreement above! See?
if it does reply to list and poster, then I do disagree with it.
The assumption that "we are in the same list" only holds when all the recipients of the message are subscribers of the list (because it rejects posts
and if they are not, they become irrelevant (another pet hate, carry out *general discussions* across multiple lists)
I don't quite see what you mean there. It's possible to have an on-topic discussion that isn't cross-posted, which involves decently behaving non-subscribers, right?
I was talking about cross-posting to multiple lists being bad idea in general discussions for the very reason you point out.
The vast majority of MUA software on the planet has only Reply and Reply All. Those users are using Reply All, so as to keep it a group discussion.
"Reply All" has a standard, decades old behavior, and mailing list robots are designed around the assumption that it is used.
Email, and certainly email standards, which spawned email traditions, such as Reply All, are older than mailing lists, and mailing list standards such as List-Post, which is slowly spawning new traditions such as Reply List.
The assumption that "we are in the same list" only holds when all the recipients of the message are subscribers of the list (because it rejects posts from nonsubscribers). Such a policy is made necessary by spammers. Traditionally, a subscriber of a mailing list is not one who wishes to post to it, but one who wishes to be in the loop on all new postings.
Hear, hear!
There currently isn't any fully reliable way for the MUA to know who is a subscriber and who isn't; only the list robot knows.
Reply All does the right thing in all circumstances. Mailing list robots know that it's being used and process things intelligently.
Are you referring to the claim that mailing list managers filter out recipients who have been given a direct copy? Can you refer me to an MLM that actually does this, with some definite proof that it does? Because I've heard rumours that they do this, but I have never actually seen one do it yet, that I've noticed. This kind of filtering is fraught with problems, that we discussed earlier in the thread, and because of them, I believe, many MLMs simply don't do this 'intelligent' filtering that people claim they do.
The new-fangled Reply List is nonstandard, and makes assumptions about how lists are configured.
I don't think it makes any assumptions about how lists are configured. If a list includes the standard List-Post header, it exposes it, through a "reply" button, that's all. I only wish MUAs would expose more of the standard List-* headers, such as List-Unsubscribe, and MLMs wouldn't need so many keyword filters and list admins time, to deal with people sending messages saying "unsubscribe" to the list.
As Ben Schmidt has noted, it is useful in specific circumstances, not as a "go to" button for replying to any posting on any kind of mailing list.
Although it's true that its use is limited, as Reply and Reply All certainly still have their uses, actually, I think Reply List is the "go to" button for mailing lists, as it works regardless of whether a list has its Reply-To header set or not. Certainly in Thunderbird, it is quickly becoming my "go to" button, as I can't remember which of the lists I subscribe to have Reply-To set, and which don't. Pushing Reply List always does what I want. If I want to include the individual I'm replying to, because a reply is particularly relevant to them, I hit Reply All--and then adjust the headers if it was a Reply-To list, because it won't work then. If I want to send a private reply, I hit Reply--and then adjust the headers if it was a Reply-To list, because it won't work then.
Not always, this account for instance sorts by list, anything not associate with a list-id or x-been-there, gets sent to an x-blah folder right at the end, so my inbox stays pretty empty, and your direct messages may not get read for weeks, as I liken it to a second spam folder :)
That's fine. If you don't want direct replies, you don't have to have them. And I think you've done exactly the right thing by filing them in a folder you rarely read. You're doing what you want using your software, rather than expecting MLMs, MUAs and others to do your job for you.
There are two good ways to sort list-related discussions into folders. If the list postings have some subject line tag like [RCU], you can use that.
It is hard to know what is going to happen with this, since such a hack breaks DomainKeys/DKIM, which is being deployed more and more widely, and honoured more and more often, particularly by big mail providers. It's possibly MUAs will start marking messages as list posts using the List-Id header or something, and then subject line hacks gradually disappear.
A way which does not rely on this subject line hack is this: have your rule look for the address of the list in the Cc: or To: In other words, whenever a given list is one of the recipients of a message, that message can be deemed as being related to that list and shunted to the appropriate folder.
This works great for both list replies and direct replies.
Yes, if you use list-specific headers to do your sorting, something will happen that you might not necessarily like: direct replies go to your inbox, and only list copies to the list folder.
But, this may also be why someone like Ben Schmidt (for whom I obviously cannot speak) may want those two copies. He might want the robot-generated list copies to go to the list folder for reference, where all the threads are intact in their entirety, and those messages in which he is personally mentioned to go to his Inbox, where they get his attention immediately.
He can delete the Inbox copies after reading them and replying to some of them, yet have the discussion intact in the appropriate folder.
You characterised my workflow well, Kaz.
And again, I think this is exactly the right thing to do. Set up your filtering based on whether or not you like to see direct replies in your inbox or not.
None of these is perfect. If you don't like seeing direct replies in your inbox, you can end up with duplicates in your list folder this way, which you may or may not have the facility to filter. On the other hand, you may have an MUA that automatically filters duplicates, e.g. by Message-Id (such as Gmail) and you can't get your inbox copy even if you want it.
Ben.
Dont quite get you there, but its pretty simple, we are on a list, having an open discussion, if you reply to me, or I, you, then it should go by the list, on this list very simple, its configured correctly by having reply-to set, to the list, problem does not exist, if you reply, or reply-all, at least when I do in evolution, it only sends to lists. some clients and free mail providers, it sends to list, and to the author on reply-all evolution does allow reply to list if I hit control-l for those brain dead lists that do not set reply-to headers, if in that case you hit reply-all to get it to list, yes, else reply, direct to sender.
Hey! I like lists without Reply-To set. I don't think they're braindead, nor am I braindead myself to think that.
However, your point is valid. If you *really* want to keep all discussion public for a list, Reply-To is a way to achieve this. It makes private replies very difficult, which might be what you want.
It does cause a few problems, though. One is that authors can't set the Reply-To header the way they want to (and, as was pointed out earlier, they standardly have the 'right' to set that header).
I think you're right that different clients do different things with Reply All.
Arguably, direct replies also cause problems. For example, the Reply List button, which as I said earlier, is in a lot of ways my "go to" button for lists, has problems with those--direct replies don't go via the list, so don't have a List-Post header, and Reply List doesn't work. I need to use Reply All, which sends both to the list and the individual I'm replying to. That's often OK, though, because they replied to me in that fashion. Nevertheless, it's not always what I want, so sometimes some manual adjustment is in order.
AFAIC, list posts are like usenet, if you partake in a public discussion then your reply should go public, you may give an answer to a real sticky problem, no point in only one person getting the answer, it should be on-list so others are aware, and also it can be archived so others with same problem in future can find answer. If you think your reply is not fit for list, or, you may want information you are not willing to make public (like for example your domain name, or a hostname) then it is acceptable to reply directly with that information, but any follows afterwards, should be back onlist.
I agree. But (1) I don't think such a policy should be enforced by list settings, such as Reply-To, and (2) I think it only applies to some lists; others are not like usenet.
No one would be having this discussion if list owners configured their lists correctly (as Thomas has done here with users@)
No. But they may be having a different one about how we could make it easier to send private replies when we want to. Or how as authors we could indicate where we want private replies set, since our Reply-To header keeps getting clobbered by the list robot.
So that is where I got the idea that you don't agree with Reply All for mailing list discussions, in expressing the agreement above! See?
if it does reply to list and poster, then I do disagree with it.
Of course, if a list doesn't have proper List-Post, etc. headers set, it has no choice, because it can't determine it is a list.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, no solution is perfect. I think there are uses for Reply List, I use it regularly in Thunderbird, and I don't think it's confusing or see any other reason to exclude it. Sure, it's not necessary, but it's not harmful, either. Consequently, I would like to see it in RoundCube also. Please consider my vote cast. I've laid out my reasons, and I hope also brought a little insight from an MLM perspective. I will not flog a dead horse. Thank you to the developers for all the work on RoundCube--it is a great and useful piece of software (even without Reply List :-p).
Ben.
On 2014-01-20 3:25 PM, Ben Schmidt mail_ben_schmidt@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Are you referring to the claim that mailing list managers filter out recipients who have been given a direct copy? Can you refer me to an MLM that actually does this, with some definite proof that it does? Because I've heard rumours that they do this, but I have never actually seen one do it yet, that I've noticed. This kind of filtering is fraught with problems, that we discussed earlier in the thread, and because of them, I believe, many MLMs simply don't do this 'intelligent' filtering that people claim they do.
Mailman can do it, but I don't think it is a default setting, and if I'm not mistaken I've seen references to it simply being a 'best effort', not a guarantee...
Personally, I don't like that preference because I would much rather get the LIST post than the direct one.
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 17:25 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
Personally, I don't like that preference because I would much rather get the LIST post than the direct one.
also, some list software can be configured that if it sees a direct copy, it wont send them the list copy, mailman has this option IIRC, so the direct copy gets rejected due to DNSBL, spam, or whatever - end result is the recipient ends up with no message at all.
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 07:54 +1100, Ben Schmidt wrote:
Hey! I like lists without Reply-To set. I don't think they're braindead,
We need to agree to disagree Ben :)
However, your point is valid. If you *really* want to keep all discussion public for a list, Reply-To is a way to achieve this. It makes private replies very difficult, which might be what you want.
geez even linux can do copy and paste ya know :)
It does cause a few problems, though. One is that authors can't set the Reply-To header the way they want to (and, as was pointed out earlier, they standardly have the 'right' to set that header).
Agree
Arguably, direct replies also cause problems. For example, the Reply List button, which as I said earlier, is in a lot of ways my "go to" button for lists, has problems with those--direct replies don't go via the list, so don't have a List-Post header, and Reply List doesn't work. I need to use Reply All, which sends both to the list and the individual I'm replying to. That's often OK, though, because they replied to me in that fashion. Nevertheless, it's not always what I want, so sometimes some manual adjustment is in order.
evolutions ctrl-l (reply list) is a force of habit here, regardless of what the reply setting are, I find it faster to use than clicking on reply/reply-all anyway
(2) I think it only applies to some lists; others are not like usenet.
Thankfully :)
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, no solution is perfect. I think there
+1
are uses for Reply List, I use it regularly in Thunderbird, and I don't think it's confusing or see any other reason to exclude it. Sure, it's not necessary, but it's not harmful, either. Consequently, I would like to see it in RoundCube also. Please consider my vote cast. I've laid out
I have no problems with this and would not object if it was to be a function, although i personally rarely use webmail, I guess if asked, I would vote FOR this feature too.
Noel
-
Ben Schmidt -
Charles Marcus -
Kaz Kylheku -
Noel Butler