Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?
On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 14:08:36 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 August 2016 11:31:18 Lisi Reisz wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 31 August 2016 15:45:42 Mark Fletcher wrote:
> > > Well and
> > > good -- actually, very good, because it prevents me making the
> > > stupid mistake I frequently make of cc-ing the poster of the mail I
> > > am replying to.
> >
> > But it doesn't prevent Nicolas from deliberately cc-ing most of the
> > rest of us when replying to our mails; which is exceedingly annoying
> > and is NOT in compliance with the CoC.
> >
> > It is, of course, and annoyance one can easily avoid by blacklisting
> > him.
> >
> > Lisi
>
> I do not know if its CoC correct, but my copy of kmail, courtesy the
> Trinity people, shows that a "reply-to-list", goes only to the list,
> while a "reply-all" goes to the list, and CC's the poster, in this case
> Lisi.
That's very odd. A reply to some entity should go To: them. Cc: is a
carbon copy for someone who is not being replied to.
> And a simple reply says only to the list. That seems odd as it should
> reply to Lisi. Something in the list headers apparently makes the list
> address a higher priority. So I use reply-all, then nuke the list
> address by hand, and change the Cc: line to a To: line if I want to PM
> Lisi.
You ought not to have to promote an address in that way when you reply-ALL.
> This works for me, and I am rarely chided about it. I would much druther
> the reply-all kept track of the posters involved in the thread and CC'd
> them if I click on the reply-all button, but that would be a memory
> eating monster of a headache for kmail. FWIW, I turn off kmails thread
> follower long ago, so I see them in their order of arrival here.
>
> Those who missed a reply with valuable info in it because they aren't
> subscribed, expecting to be Cc'd for that whole thread, should
> subscribe, problem solved.
>
> If our Mr. George were to use an email agent that did observe a similar
> protocol, that would stand a good chance of shutting down threads such
> as this one.
But that would be breaking a perfectly good MUA.
The problem boils down to somebody adding addresses to Mail-Followup-To,
which has a worse effect that just CCing people when replying to d-u,
something that people already moan about. I already defend myself
against the latter with Reply-To: set to the list. Now it appears
I have to defend myself against committing the former by dropping
Mail-Followup-To. Unfortunately mutt cannot divine whether an address
in a received Mail-Followup-To was put there by the unsubscribed
owner, or gratuitously by someone else. It either passes them all
along, or drops them all, AFAICT.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: