On Thu, 2017-09-07 at 16:50 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2017-09-07 at 16:36 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-09-07 at 14:01 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > I am aware that you are one of the former group, and you don't want to > > > fix your filters so that they match your preferred use case for some > > > reason. IIRC I never did work out why you think this peculiarity of > > > yours is more important, overall, than deliberately cutting others out > > > of mail threads so that they never see messages at all. > > > > I seem to have hit a nerve. My filters work fine and I have no problem > > with duplicates. I also have no desire to "deliberately cut others out > > of mail threads" but if someone doesn't notice a reply to a question > > they themselves have posted because it went to the list they posted it > > on and not to their personal inbox, frankly I'm not going to worry > > about it. > > I understand that you don't have much sympathy for me when I posted to > the list and didn't see the reply, and that's fair enough — but in fact > I *did* remember that this problem happens on this list a lot, and keep > checking the list manually for a few days. But the response actually > came 11 days later, but which time I'd stopped checking.
I don't understand that. I have Evolution filters to sort list traffic into folders, and the folder list will show me a count of unread messages. My default folder view is also set to Unseen. Barring bugs, I don't see how you can miss a reply. You don't need to remember to check for it manually. I occasionally see replies to messages that are weeks old and I've long forgotten about. > And that's only one of the use cases I listed. There are other users > who *never* receive the message for absolutely no fault of their own. I'd be interested to see examples of this, other than people posting questions *without* being on the list, but generally those who do so are careful to mention it and ask for personal replies. > > I simply wondered why you were complaining about Reply-to- > > List, which is widely used both here and elsewhere. It appears from > > your essay on the subject that you would prefer Reply-to-List be > > removed from Evolution (or its behaviour changed). I'm fine with it as > > it is and will continue to use it when appropriate. > > Out of interest, is it that you don't *care* that you are cutting > people out of the conversation — permanently, as well as merely > temporarily delaying them seeing the messages as in my case — or is it > that you still don't think that's what you're doing? (Thanks for *not* > doing it this time, btw) I didn't think I was cutting anyone out, and have never been told that it was happening. No need to thank me. In the case of this thread you left me no alternative since once you use Reply-to-All the List-* headers are no longer present in subsequent messages, so the Reply-to- List option is not available. That's why I prefer Reply-to-List -- it preserves more information, which MUAs could potentially use. poc _______________________________________________ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
