David Guntner wrote:
> Bob Proulx grabbed a keyboard and wrote:
> > For one I use the mailing list headers List-Id and List-Post. Those
> > are the standard headers and those are the best ones to use for filing
> > mailing list messages. Smart MUAs use those to know how to do a
> > list-reply. Therefore the copy I want is the copy that comes from the
> > mailing list.
>
> Not every MUA does, however. The one I'm using, for example, does not
> (or if it does, I've never figured out how to turn that feature on...).
> Therefor, I've also got a Procmail recipe that adds a Reply-To:
> pointing back to the list on my local copy (of debian-user, since it
> doesn't add one itself - on lists that do so, I don't use that rule) so
> that when I hit reply, it goes back to the list as it should since most
> of the time a reply should go back to the list when replying to a
> posting on the list. And I don't want to have to remember to do it
> manually each time I reply. :-)
My takeaway is that you have applied a workaround that shouldn't be
needed to a problem that shouldn't exist. Applying Reply-To destroys
the sender's use of Reply-To which is reserved for them to use.
The classic line here is, "Now you have two problems." :-)
> It all depends on your experiences and own requirements. I for one am
> on a decade+ old list that was "home grown" - the guy running it "rolled
> his own," so to speak. It doesn't use a subject tag, and it has never
> had those now-standard List-ID headers, nor is it likely to anytime in
> the future. So even if I *were* using a MUA that understands those
> headers, it would do me no good.
I would nag your buddy into adding those headers. It will help modern
mail user agents to be able to do the right thing automatically.
> It has never occurred to me to ever filter based in a List-ID field,
> since back in the "old days" when I started doing this, they hadn't yet
> come into existence. :-)
Every decade or so it is good to take a breath and look around and
make smart upgrades to systems. The Debian mailing lists have been
around for a long time and are basically a home grown system too
(using Smartlist) but they comply with modern standards. I operate
several Majordomo mailing lists and they all comply with the modern
standards. It is really as easy piping the message through formail
and having it add the headers.
> And even *after* coming into existence, you
> still have to *send* your message to the list in question, thus the To:
> or Cc: will *always* be there, regardless of the presence (or lack
> thereof) of a List-ID header. Also, by filtering on those (To, Cc), it
> works 100% of the time - even if the above recipe deletes the list copy
> if it came in second. :-)
For a nasty example, I hate it when people BCC mailing lists. Then
the To and CC fields are not able to reply to the mailing list because
they don't include it. But since List-Post is added by the mailing
list that value is correct. But that is an example of something that
shouldn't be happening. Many lists block bcc to the list since that
is an anti-spam strategy too.
> For myself, this is what I use specifically for the Debian users list:
> ...
> It will pretty much catch the string being looked for if it shows up
> *anywhere* in the message headers. :-) Since I've never filtered based
> on a header which may-or-may-not be there, deleting the second,
> duplicate copy of a message has never caused a problem even if that one
> was the list-processed copy.
>
> In fact, I would argue that using the above filter (TO_) is *less*
> problematic than the method you use, since deleting a duplicate
> Message-ID does have the potential to remove the copy that actually went
> through the list - it doesn't matter which one got to you first, since
> it *still* gets filtered into the correct folder.
>
> But again, it's all a matter of personal taste, personal experiences and
> personal requirements (like I said, I'm on a really old mailing list
> which has never had List-ID headers and most likely hell will freeze
> over before it gets them; the list has been around longer than the RFC
> which defines List-ID).
Yep.
> > P.S. Here is the procmail rules I use to file all Debian mailing list
> > messages.
> >
> > :0
> > * ^List-Id: .*<debian-[-a-zA-Z0-9]+\.lists\.debian\.org>
> > * ^List-Id: .*<debian-\/[-a-zA-Z0-9]+
> > Lists/debian/$MATCH/
> >
> > :0
> > * ^List-Id: .*<[-a-zA-Z0-9]+\.lists\.alioth\.debian\.org>
> > * ^List-Id: .*<\/[-a-zA-Z0-9]+
> > Lists/debian/$MATCH/
>
> That's great for filing (and cool to know about, for mailing lists which
> include those standard headers). How does it get rid of the dup when
> someone does a To: the list and Cc: the person on the list he's
> replying to?
It doesn't. Which is why I noted it as a post script. But it is
related.
> (Remember, I sent the above recipe because someone was complaining
> about duplicate message, not that they didn't know how to filter
> them into a folder - in essence, you've provided an answer to a
> question that he didn't ask. :-) )
Remember that in essence you created a problem for the person using it
that they didn't have before. :-)
> BTW, in your above example: What is $MATCH set to, and where it it set?
man procmailrc
MATCH This variable is assigned to by procmail whenever it is
told to extract text from a matching regular expression.
It will contain all text matching the regular expression
past the `\/' token.
This is why the regular expression is run twice. Once to determine
that there is a maching string. A second time to set the MATCH
variable to it.
* ^List-Id: .*<[-a-zA-Z0-9]+\.lists\.alioth\.debian\.org>
* ^List-Id: .*<\/[-a-zA-Z0-9]+
Doing this
* ^List-Id: .*<\/[-a-zA-Z0-9]+\.lists\.alioth\.debian\.org>
would include all of the rest of the line in the match too. Since I
don't want the .lists.alioth.debian.org part I have a second line that
sets the MATCH without it.
Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature