On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 18:43 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 12:12 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > Perhaps the "reply to all" nag could have a configurable threshold, but
> > it's no big deal.
>
> Yeah, I thought about that too, but couldn't be bothered. It's only a
> pr
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 12:12 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Perhaps the "reply to all" nag could have a configurable threshold, but
> it's no big deal.
Yeah, I thought about that too, but couldn't be bothered. It's only a
prompt to make you think; it doesn't have to be precise.
Besides, the k
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 12:12 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Perhaps you should post your detailed proposal (including an
> explanation of the nags) to the BZ page to make it more
> "official" (and more likely to be seen by the Evo devels).
I just noticed you already did this before I replied.
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 17:21 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 11:45 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > OT: This is just to note that David's last reply has now fallen off the
> > right-hand edge of my (landscape-mode) screen, i.e. I can't see even the
> > first character of t
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 17:21 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 11:45 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > OT: This is just to note that David's last reply has now fallen off the
> > right-hand edge of my (landscape-mode) screen, i.e. I can't see even the
> > first character of t
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 16:57 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 11:15 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 16:09 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:42 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > > And there are probably an equal number
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 15:12 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> What I think is rude and unacceptable are the people who write a
> message to a list where *they* are asking for help and they say "don't
> forget to CC: me in any replies because I don't want to read the
> list". If you are asking for help, at
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 11:45 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> OT: This is just to note that David's last reply has now fallen off the
> right-hand edge of my (landscape-mode) screen, i.e. I can't see even the
> first character of the Subject.
Do you mean the 'R' for 'Reply' which is the first c
OT: This is just to note that David's last reply has now fallen off the
right-hand edge of my (landscape-mode) screen, i.e. I can't see even the
first character of the Subject. Hurray for nested threads!
So there's another topic to take up when we're done with the list
issue :-)
poc
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 15:12 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> >
> > > What I would like is for the Reply-to-List to be more prominent to
> > > encourage people to use that rather than just blindly replying to the
> > > user.
> >
> > Certainly I'm with you on the 'rather than just blindly replying to the
>
> > What I would like is for the Reply-to-List to be more prominent to
> > encourage people to use that rather than just blindly replying to the
> > user.
>
> Certainly I'm with you on the 'rather than just blindly replying to the
> user' bit -- there's now a pop-up which will say "you're repl
El jue, 15-07-2010 a las 16:09 +0100, David Woodhouse escribió:
> On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:42 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > And there are probably an equal number who believe the contrary, like
> > me, but let's not argue about it. I think Paul's suggestion that the
> > default behaviour
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 12:44 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> OK. So it's not just any List-*: header, there's a specific list of
> headers it needs (with specific formats in some cases). Fine, that
> explains why my test didn't work. Thanks for explaining it.
Arguably we should fix things so that it's
> > >
> > > The operation *does*. You're getting confused by the fact that the
> > > current menu items get disabled when you're not looking at a list
> > > message.
> > >
> > > But actually, some lists don't have a List-Post: header. If there are
> > > *any* List-* headers, you'll see the list
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 11:09 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > > > Remember, the existing reply-to-list operation *already* falls back
> > > > to replying to all if it can't find a List-Post: header.
> > >
> > > No it doesn't.
> >
> > The operation *does*. You're getting confused by the fact that the
> > > Remember, the existing reply-to-list operation *already* falls back
> > > to replying to all if it can't find a List-Post: header.
> >
> > No it doesn't.
>
> The operation *does*. You're getting confused by the fact that the
> current menu items get disabled when you're not looking at a
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 16:46 +1000, Andrew Cowie wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 10:14 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > An obvious solution to this is to do what Kmail does. When the message
> > being replied to contains a List-Post header, Ctrl-R should do the same
> > as Ctrl-L. There should a
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 09:15 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> And I think it extremely rude for someone to effectively say "I want to
> say something but I can't be arsed to find out what anyone else has to
> say. My time is more important than yours so please send the messages
> directly to me to save me
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 10:14 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> An obvious solution to this is to do what Kmail does. When the message
> being replied to contains a List-Post header, Ctrl-R should do the same
> as Ctrl-L. There should also be a Reply-To-Author command for the rare
> case when the r
I like your picture, I think that way is fine to me.
Sylvia
El jue, 15-07-2010 a las 16:57 +0100, David Woodhouse escribió:
> On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 11:15 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 16:09 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:42 -0430, Pa
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 21:28 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > Remember, the existing reply-to-list operation *already* falls back
> > to replying to all if it can't find a List-Post: header.
>
> No it doesn't.
The operation *does*. You're getting confused by the fact that the
current menu items get
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 20:54 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> My understanding *was* that those people who wanted reply-to-list
> would
> want to use it for *all* lists. Remember, the existing reply-to-list
> operation *already* falls back to replying to all if it can't find a
> List-Post: header.
N
>
> > Also I need a reply all for list messages when I get a CC: copy without
> > the list headers in the message.
>
> When you get a Cc copy without the list headers in the message, that
> *isn't* a list message in any meaningful sense of the term -- it's a
> direct message.
Yes, I understand
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 18:22 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > because even though your normal
> > preference is to reply-to-list on list messages, you might *sometimes*
> > want to reply-to-all on a list message instead?
>
> No, I need to reply all for normal messages - life isn't just about
> lists :
> >
> > But Reply-to-All is useful, I don't want it to become a Reply-in-Public.
> > And the term Public is horrible - many of the lists I am on are private
> > lists, the reply is most definitely not public and it will just confuse
> > people.
>
> Remember, we're *only* talking about the toolba
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 11:15 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 16:09 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:42 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > And there are probably an equal number who believe the contrary, like
> > > me, but let's not argue about
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 16:09 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:42 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > And there are probably an equal number who believe the contrary, like
> > me, but let's not argue about it. I think Paul's suggestion that the
> > default behaviour for "Rep
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 12:01 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 10:14 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > Note: this is a comment on Evo itself, rather than the Evo list.
> >
> > As someone who posts quite a lot on this list, I'm forever having to
> > deal with people reply
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 13:00 +1000, Nick Jenkins wrote:
> > > OK, let's summarize (RT = Reply-To address, LP = List-Post
> address,
> > > SA = Sender or From Address, CC = CC addresses):
> >
> > This all far too complicated.
>
> Agreed. If it's a user-facing change that too complicated to
> unders
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 13:24 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> >
> > And it's *already* simple for the user to choose if they're using the
> > keyboard shortcuts or the menu; it's only the toolbar that really needs
> > attention, as you say.
>
> Fine. So what's the point of all this discussion then? Ju
>
> And it's *already* simple for the user to choose if they're using the
> keyboard shortcuts or the menu; it's only the toolbar that really needs
> attention, as you say.
Fine. So what's the point of all this discussion then? Just change the
toolbar.
>
> And despite the fact that I persona
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 09:15 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > Let's not argue about that too much -- we won't make any progress. Let's
> > just recognise that this 'DTRT' thing that you suggest is hard when we
> > can't agree on what TRT is.
>
> Yes, but all your solutions seem to implement it the way
>
> My current inclination is to head down the KISS route - just put a
> Reply-to-list button on the toolbar that might possibly be greyed out if
> there is no list info. That seems to be simple, quick and easy to
> implement - it's just a patch to an XML file.
>
In fact I've just done it:
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 11:57 +0200, Kåre Fiedler Christiansen wrote:
> First: Apologies, Pete, I accidentally replied off-list. Honestly, I
> didn't mean to. I just clicked the wrong reply button (the one I used
> the most).
:-)
> >
> > I would be strongly against any implementation that automat
First: Apologies, Pete, I accidentally replied off-list. Honestly, I
didn't mean to. I just clicked the wrong reply button (the one I used
the most).
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 09:15 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > Let's not argue about that too much -- we won't make any progress.
Let's
> > just recogn
>
> The problem with that suggestion is that there are people (including
> myself) who firmly believe that the "right" thing to do with a list
> message is to *include* the original sender when replying, unless you're
> sure they don't want you to.
And I very firmly believe that CC'ing someone w
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 23:31 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > This button would DTRT based on the message, to send a public
> reply.
> > So, in this mode replies to mailing lists with List-Post headers
> would
> > go there only. Otherwise it behaves as today.
>
> The problem with that suggestion
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 17:15 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> What I'm suggesting is that we retarget "Reply to All" (Shift-Ctrl-R)
> and the button to be, instead "Reply Publicly" (or you can keep it
> named "Reply to All" for all I care). This button would DTRT based on
> the message, to send a public
> The real target of this automatic behaviour would be the clueless
> users who don't really think about what they're doing -- yes?
Plus more importantly the vast silent majority of people, who want their
email client to have sensible defaults, so they can just start using it
for its intended purp
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 17:15 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> What I'm suggesting is that we retarget "Reply to All" (Shift-Ctrl-R)
> and the button to be, instead "Reply Publicly" (or you can keep it named
> "Reply to All" for all I care). This button would DTRT based on the
> message, to send a public
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 23:31 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Even if they are subscribed (and looking in that folder) there may also
> be a substantial delay to receiving mails through the mailing list,
> which will introduce significantly more latency than if the active
> participants are directly
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 17:15 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> What I'm suggesting is that we retarget "Reply to All" (Shift-Ctrl-R)
> and the button to be, instead "Reply Publicly" (or you can keep it named
> "Reply to All" for all I care).
OK, I can agree with that.
> This button would DTRT based on
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 08:52 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> I'm quite reluctant to change toolbar layout depending on the message.
> It will work for the inexpert user who consciously looks at the toolbar,
> but for many people clicking on an icon is a reflex action and muscle
> memory of wher
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:51 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> How is that different from the table (with your amendments)?
It's not. It's just a simpler way of saying it. An even simpler way is:
- Ctrl-R replies privately to the sender, using their Reply-To: or From:
- Ctrl-Shift-R replies to
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 20:47 +0200, Kåre Fiedler Christiansen wrote:
> > A preference that lets you select your preferred default "reply
> > publicly" operation would be nice as well (I think we have something
> > like that for forward). The values could be "Best effort" (default),
> > "All recipie
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 16:20 -0400, George Reeke wrote:
> I've been trying to follow all this but am missing a key concept--
> could someone just tell me and anybody else who doesn't already know:
> what is a "munged list"?
A "munged list" is one where the mailing list software resets the
Reply-To:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 15:21 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:34 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > Personal Reply Non-Munged List
> > Munged List w/o Option Munged List with Option
> > > Ctrl-R to RT to RT
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:27 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> What I'd really like to see is a "reply publicly" operation, which is
> the standard one that is used by default (the standard key binding and
> the standard button), which by default "does the right thing" to
> create a public reply to the mes
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:34 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Personal Reply Non-Munged List
> Munged List w/o Option Munged List with Option
> > Ctrl-R to RT to RT to
> RT to SA
> > Ctrl-L to RT+CC
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:27 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> What I'd really like to see is a "reply publicly" operation, which is
> the standard one that is used by default (the standard key binding and
> the standard button), which by default "does the right thing" to create
> a public reply to the
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 19:15 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> >
> > OK, let's summarize (RT = Reply-To address, LP = List-Post address,
> > SA = Sender or From Address, CC = CC addresses):
> >
> > Personal Reply Non-Munged List Munged List w/o
> > Option Munged List with O
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:34 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Ctrl-R: Uses the Reply-To: header if valid, else the From: header.
> Ctrl-Shift-R: Uses the same as Ctrl-R, and adds the Cc: recipients.
> Ctrl-L: Uses the List-Post: header if valid, else same as Ctrl-Shift-R.
I feel like I'm trailing
>
> OK, let's summarize (RT = Reply-To address, LP = List-Post address,
> SA = Sender or From Address, CC = CC addresses):
>
> Personal Reply Non-Munged List Munged List w/o
> Option Munged List with Option
> Ctrl-Rto RT to RT
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 12:25 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> OK, let's summarize (RT = Reply-To address, LP = List-Post address,
> SA = Sender or From Address, CC = CC addresses):
>
> Personal Reply Non-Munged List Munged List
> w/o Option Munged List with
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 17:04 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > I don't mind another option but it's not the whole solution. On
> munged
> > lists (the Fedora list is the prime example) I almost always just
> hit
> > Ctrl-L, but on the rare occasions I want to communicate privately to
> the
> > sende
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 11:15 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 16:32 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > In fact I think mostly you don't, but when you do (on munged lists)
> > > you really do.
> >
> > The current option, if enabled, *only* takes effect on munged lists.
> >
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 16:32 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > In fact I think mostly you don't, but when you do (on munged lists)
> > you really do.
>
> The current option, if enabled, *only* takes effect on munged lists.
> Specifically, it will only ignore a Reply-To: address if that address
> m
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 10:47 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > 1. Nag popup for "you are replying privately to a mailing list message"
> > 2. Nag popup for "you are replying to all, to many recipients"
>
> Both of these are OK, as long as the usual conditions apply, i.e. the
> state is repres
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 15:30 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 09:30 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:40 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > > I thought we were past that.
> > >
> > > So did I, but we are *still* seeing proposals which would replace
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 09:30 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:40 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > I thought we were past that.
> >
> > So did I, but we are *still* seeing proposals which would replace the
> > existing private "Reply" button with a new "Reply" button t
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:10 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Hm, still plenty of scope for a user to think that means *only* for the
> evolution list and say 'remember my choice', then to be surprised when
> they accidentally reply in public to *another* list which they may not
> even have realised
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:40 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > I thought we were past that.
>
> So did I, but we are *still* seeing proposals which would replace the
> existing private "Reply" button with a new "Reply" button that
> sometimes replies to the list.
IIRC Matthew had this as a user-co
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:42 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > The point of the suggested changes is to make it easier for
> *anyone*
> > to do the right thing in the most common case without having to
> think
> > about it.
>
> The problem is that you *cannot* get it right in all circumstances.
O
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 09:01 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 13:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > In general, those who are sophisticated enough to preconfigure
> > anything are perfectly capable of hitting the right buttons in the
> > first place. There doesn't seem to
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 09:05 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > Experienced users do make mistakes, and may well have disabled the nag
> > pop-up which saves the novice users. But still this is a *much* better
> > failure mode than accidentally sending stuff to the list which should
> > have been
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:18 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> GRRR - reply-to-list doesn't even work on the reply you sent because
> you did a reply-to-all and I never got the list version of the
> message,
> only the direct message. Hence the "Reply to all" is NO SUBSTITUTE for
> "Reply to list".
>
> T
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 13:54 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > All of the direct replies from experienced users are usually
> followed
> > within a few minutes by another email saying something like "Sorry,
> I
> > replied directly to you in my haste, that should have gone to the
> > list".
>
> Ex
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 14:18 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> GRRR - reply-to-list doesn't even work on the reply you sent because
> you did a reply-to-all and I never got the list version of the message,
> only the direct message. Hence the "Reply to all" is NO SUBSTITUTE for
> "Reply to list".
>
> This
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 13:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> In general, those who are sophisticated enough to preconfigure
> anything are perfectly capable of hitting the right buttons in the
> first place. There doesn't seem to be a lot of point in such a
> context-dependent action, for someone wh
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 07:39 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 08:50 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Does that include changing the name of the 'Reply' button to read
> > 'Private Reply'? I've got a patch for that, but I was dubious about that
> > anyway just because it changes
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 12:09 +1000, Nick Jenkins wrote:
> I quite like the toolbar buttons, and people who are newer to Evo will
> probably use them more too. So maybe the toolbar buttons can be
> changed,
> but only when there's the appropriate list headers? Example toolbar
> buttons:
>
> Normal e
GRRR - reply-to-list doesn't even work on the reply you sent because
you did a reply-to-all and I never got the list version of the message,
only the direct message. Hence the "Reply to all" is NO SUBSTITUTE for
"Reply to list".
This discussion is happening on the mailing list, please could you
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 19:04 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 18:58 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
[...]
> > I don't know about anyone else but I'm a bit lost. It seems like it
> > shouldn't be too difficult to collect all the current relevant behavior
> > into one table and then
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 09:02 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 13:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > Then we can debate an appropriate default for the preference.
> >
> > If we're exposing it in the UI *instead* of the existing 'Reply' action,
> > then it really *has* to be p
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 13:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Then we can debate an appropriate default for the preference.
>
> If we're exposing it in the UI *instead* of the existing 'Reply' action,
> then it really *has* to be private by default. The existing UI action
> sends private mail, and
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 07:39 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 08:50 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Does that include changing the name of the 'Reply' button to read
> > 'Private Reply'? I've got a patch for that, but I was dubious about that
> > anyway just because it changes
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 13:36 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > >
> > >[ ] Reply button invokes mailing list reply
> >
> > This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The user can *already* express a
> > preference, by moving their hand an inch or two to the left or right and
> > hitting a different (ke
> >
> >[ ] Reply button invokes mailing list reply
>
> This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The user can *already* express a
> preference, by moving their hand an inch or two to the left or right and
> hitting a different (key|menu item|button).
But there isn't a "Reply to List" button -
El mié, 14-07-2010 a las 07:39 -0400, Matthew Barnes escribió:
> On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 08:50 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Does that include changing the name of the 'Reply' button to read
> > 'Private Reply'? I've got a patch for that, but I was dubious about that
> > anyway just because it
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 07:39 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 08:50 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Does that include changing the name of the 'Reply' button to read
> > 'Private Reply'? I've got a patch for that, but I was dubious about that
> > anyway just because it changes
>
> Claws Mail has an interesting approach to this problem. They define
> dedicated "Reply to Sender" and "Reply to List" actions in their menus,
> but also a generic "Reply" action whose behavior for a mailing list post
> is determined by a user preference:
>
>[ ] Reply button invokes mail
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 08:50 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Does that include changing the name of the 'Reply' button to read
> 'Private Reply'? I've got a patch for that, but I was dubious about that
> anyway just because it changes the size of the button.
I would say so. Main window's toolbar s
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 22:36 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> GNOME's HIG generally forbids changing menus and toolbars on the fly
> like that, and I tend to agree.
Does that include changing the name of the 'Reply' button to read
'Private Reply'? I've got a patch for that, but I was dubious about
[cut]
> .. won't some people still want the 'Reply to List only' option?
Yes, that would be me for example. I do not see any point to send reply
to author of the message. The mailing list software should take care of
that.
--
Patryk "LeadMan" Benderz
Linux Registered User #377521
() ascii ribbon
Dnia 2010-07-12, pon o godzinie 18:06 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan pisze:
> On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 16:01 -0600, Bart wrote:
> > How about a little piece of code that looks at the message and, if
> > it's going to a list, nags you if you've top posted?
>
> It's tempting ... :-)
...and don't give use
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 12:09 +1000, Nick Jenkins wrote:
> So that'd leave toolbar buttons something like this:
> Normal email: [ Reply ] [ Reply to All ] [ Forward ]
> A list email: [ Reply to List ] [ Private Reply ] [ Forward ]
>
> Main criticisms of this that I can think of are:
> * I
> I almost never use the buttons so that's irrelevant to me.
I quite like the toolbar buttons, and people who are newer to Evo will
probably use them more too. So maybe the toolbar buttons can be changed,
but only when there's the appropriate list headers? Example toolbar
buttons:
Normal email: [
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 18:58 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 17:30 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > You could add a third button, I suppose... but then why bother making
> > > it change to 'Reply to All' for non-list messages, when there's an
> > > existing 'Reply to All' but
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 19:01 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> If it does what we've been saying then I guess so. I've not been reading
> code or recompiling Evo to check. I guess it's up to Matthew if he wants
> to accept the patch.
>
> I'm still holding out for the Reply To Author action of cou
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 00:10 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 18:31 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 23:10 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > > I thought we were going the other way now, as you proposed I.e.
> > > turning
> > > > Reply To List into Re
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 17:30 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > You could add a third button, I suppose... but then why bother making
> > it change to 'Reply to All' for non-list messages, when there's an
> > existing 'Reply to All' button right next to it? (As there is in the
> > Message menu).
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 18:31 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 23:10 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > I thought we were going the other way now, as you proposed I.e.
> > turning
> > > Reply To List into Reply To All when no list headers are detected.
> >
> > Remember, the
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 16:20 -0600, Bart wrote:
> I can't understand why, if replying to a list message, I would want to
> send the same message to a person on that list. I find it quite
> annoying to get two messages because to reply, I have to pick out
> which is which. CTRL-L works only on the
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 23:10 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > I thought we were going the other way now, as you proposed I.e.
> turning
> > Reply To List into Reply To All when no list headers are detected.
>
> Remember, there are three different things which are affected...
>
> 1. For the *keyst
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 17:34 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > And this one to say "are you sure you want to reply to all?" when you
> > reply to a message with lots of recipients. Unless it's a mailing list
> > message.
>
> Definitely against this. There's no such thing as a "right number" of
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 16:24 -0600, Bart wrote:
> Also, additional pop ups are annnoying! There are too many of then
> now. I know,
It's a trade-off. The annoyance that you feel when you *personally* see
that pop-up just once and click the "never bother me again" option,
versus the annoyance you
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 17:30 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> I almost never use the buttons so that's irrelevant to me.
>
> poc
>
> ___
But I use then all the time!
Also, additional pop ups are annnoying! There are too many of then now.
I know,
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 20:38 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 20:48 +0200, Kåre Fiedler Christiansen wrote:
> > It seems to me that people are split in two camps:
> > * Those who want full control over who to reply to when, and same
> > short-cuts always
> > * Those who want E
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 17:30 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 19:35 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> > OK, that's more complex then... because in the general case it's not
> > really OK to turn *either* of the existing 'Reply' or 'Reply to All'
> > buttons into a 'Reply
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 20:38 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > * Those who want Evolution to try to be intelligent about where to
> > reply to, by somehow magically detecting the "appropriate" way to
> > reply
>
> I think it's best for Evolution always to do what you ask it.
>
> But there are a l
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
