Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

[Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk>]

On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 14:23:01 -0500, David Wright wrote:

> On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 16:10:37 (+0200), Nicolas George wrote:
> > Le quartidi 14 fructidor, an CCXXIV, David Wright a écrit :
> > > The error might have been mine. I think I CC'd Lisi in error.
> > > The other list I'm on expects people to group-reply.
> > > I forgot myself.
> 
> After some experiments, I think I have to withdraw that explanation.
> Group-reply would have put
>     To: Lisi ..., debian-user@lists.debian.org
> whereas my posting had
>     To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>     Cc: Lisi ...
> which is what list-reply writes¹.
> 
> In fact, the problem was that the posting I replied to had
>     Mail-Followup-To: Lisi ..., debian-user@lists.debian.org
> in the header, which mutt dutifully obeyed *and* copied into my reply.

You were also a victim, like me. The source of the infection remains at
large and is still active.

> I might have spotted that Lisi was CC'd, but the copying of
> Mail-Followup-To into my posting happens behind the scenes,
> like handling References.

Does "ask-no" help? Or going the whole hog with "no"?

> I suppose I could set a blank Mail-Followup-To in my composition
> editor to prevent its auto-generation. (I don't do anything
> sophisticated like posting to multiple lists.) But that might defeat
> people who use Mail-Followup-To as a way of receiving replies without
> being subscribed to the list, so maybe that's not a good idea.

Of the approximately 14,000 mails in my -user archive about 1000 have a
MFT header. Out of that 1000 the vast majority designate -user@l.d.o as
the only place where the mail should go to. About 10 have a user's 
address only; 0.1%. Decision time.
 
> > Systematic group-reply is the correct way of using mailing-lists, because it
> > is the only way that does not require the user to waste time for each mail
> > deciding the proper key to hit.
> > 
> > This clause of the code of conduct is unsustainable, and therefore should be
> > ignored until the configuration is fixed and the corresponding clause
> > updated.
> > 
> > In the meantime, let the whiners whine; the non-whiners can unilaterally fix
> > things for themselves by setting the reply-to header, just like you or me.
> 
> Yes, I can't understand why more people don't set it.

Try harder :).

-- 
Brian.

Not a whiner but happy with "L", "r" and "g" in Mutt.