On Fri, March 21, 2014 14:20, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:41:54 +0100 > "J. Roeleveld" <jo...@antarean.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, March 21, 2014 12:59, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> > On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:50:23 +0100 >> > "J. Roeleveld" <jo...@antarean.org> wrote: >> > >> >> Tom, >> >> >> >> Please reply to list. No need to include me in the recipient list. >> > >> > Please filter duplicate mails. No need to tell each other this. >> >> I filter on the server, using SIEVE-scripts. >> Please provide the correct syntax I need to do this. > > The vnd.dovecot.duplicate extension can be used to do this, RFC: > > > http://hg.rename-it.nl/dovecot-2.1-pigeonhole/raw-file/tip/doc/rfc/spec-bosch-sieve-duplicate.txt > > It is designed exactly for this purpose, quote from the introduction: > > Duplicate deliveries are a common side-effect of being subscribed > to a mailing list. > > Example correct syntax: > > require ["vnd.dovecot.duplicate", "fileinto", "mailbox"]; > > if duplicate { > fileinto :create "Trash/Duplicate"; > }
Is that one included in the Cyrus ebuild? > This will move duplicates to Trash/Duplicate, given that you enable the > vnd.dovecot.duplicate extension; I use a similar rule in procmail. I ONLY want duplicates that would end up in my inbox to be filtered. If an email is sent to 2 or more mailing lists, they should end up in each relevant mailing list folder. >> You are the only one causing duplicate emails, all others on this >> list do NOT cause duplicate emails. > > That's because some people here are users that don't commonly use > bigger mailing lists and thus have no such filter in place; however, > when you get to participate in bigger mailing lists, you will get such > duplicate mails by design if you don't have a filter. Take for example > the LKML, where it is common practice that relevant mailing lists as > well as individuals are CC-ed; you'll get a dupe as one of either. With LKML, most people don't stay subscribed for very long as their mailboxes overflow. On this list, the general consensus is that you reply to list only unless specifically requested otherwise. > Being the sender of a message, however, some mailing lists allow you to > control whether you want to be CC-ed; this can be done by setting a > "Reply-To header", but in this case it is always overridden which > removes the ability to guarantee you'll receive the message. I am subscribed, so no need to add me to the CC. If I am really interested in the reply and I would not be in the list, I would check the archives, which are updated fast enough for the purpose. > There are other participants on the Gentoo mailing lists that > participate in other mailing lists too; and when met with Reply-To > mungling, they do the same approach. eg. MichaŠGórny (mgorny) > >> This means the cause is on your side and the solution should then >> also be on your side. > > The goal is to ensure people receive their mail; if I were to make a > solution on my sight, it voids that goal as the guarantee is gone. The goal only makes sense when replying to emails that are still relevant. A discussion that is over a month old is usually no longer relevant. Especially if the email only contains information that already was sent. >> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html >> > http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html >> >> I disagree with those. Seen those arguments before along with the >> opposite versions. Mailing lists where a reply does not work are >> broken. Mailing lists where I always end up with duplicate replies >> don't stay used by myself for very long. > > Given a present filter, I use any mailing list; I don't let technical > differences in the software being used overcome the ability to state > something on a mailing list, and if a technical difference does matter > to someone (0.1% in this case) I expect them to adapt. This ain't a > place where "One True Way" is to be enforced; as you can see, I very > well consider the standard reply button to be broken... Still waiting for a filter that works on my server. >> >> Also, no need to reopen a closed mail >> > >> > A thread can't be closed by its individuals; you can choose to not >> > reply, but that doesn't withhold the ability for others to reply. >> >> True, but a mail-thread that hasn't had a reply for over a month is >> usually considered closed. It's nice that you decide to catch up with >> your emails, but please then take care not to flood inboxes as well. > > Similar to above, right click and "ignore thread" could be used as > well as "sort / group by thread"; as without both features, there's no > dam in place to avoid the flood from happening. Filtering out your emails fully also would avoid this happening. > As for the river / sea, there's no way to convince the river / sea to > go away; it'll be there, even if you could use a bucket to remove me, > there'll be another person or so tomorrow. On this list, you (people who insist on CC-ing the world) are the minority. > In comparison, on the LKML you will get replies one or more months > later; if you there then reply claiming a thread is closed, it'll be > perceived as everything but that... I would expect the reply to make sense when it comes. -- Joost
