On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 03:00:32PM +0200, lee wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 09:51:03AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > * lee [07-03-10 09:13]:
> > > On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 12:12:38AM +0200, Rado S wrote:
> > >
> > > > Practice has shown that it is not best practice.
> > >
> > > Because of
=- lee wrote on Sat 3.Jul'10 at 15:12:49 +0200 -=
> > Wasted effort compared to an editor macro to add some line like
> > "please acknowledge receipt and respond ASAP".
>
> What makes you think that the recipient would bother to write an
> answer?
What's so much harder for the recipient to hit
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 09:51:03AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * lee [07-03-10 09:13]:
> > On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 12:12:38AM +0200, Rado S wrote:
> >
> > > Practice has shown that it is not best practice.
> >
> > Because of poor support, maybe :)
>
> Or, more likely, requests for features
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:33:22PM +0200, Simon Ruderich wrote:
>
> Either
> directly or in a wrapper script (which could even be in C, but I
> would use something faster to develop, like Shell, Perl, Python,
> ..) used in $editor. It would check the mail after you exit the
> editor, and then ask
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:33:22PM +0200, Simon Ruderich wrote:
>On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 03:12:49PM +0200, lee wrote:
>
>But if the recipient doesn't care about your mail, then how does
>adding a receipt request help?
>
>>> Practice has shown that it is not best practice.
>>
>> Because of poor supp
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 03:12:49PM +0200, lee wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Let me add that you just got me to the idea that a simple yes/no for a
> combination of recipients won't suffice: It would have to be
> always/once/no/never, meaning that for the combination of recipients
> in question, the requestin
* lee [07-03-10 09:13]:
> On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 12:12:38AM +0200, Rado S wrote:
>
> > Practice has shown that it is not best practice.
>
> Because of poor support, maybe :)
Or, more likely, requests for features that most do *not* want presented
in a haughty manner which would require coding
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 12:12:38AM +0200, Rado S wrote:
>
> Your original request just sounds like reversing the default from
> "mostly no r-r, with manual exceptions" to "mosty _DO_ r-r, with
> manual exceptions", it actually requires you still to make a manual
> choice...
That is not at all wha
Сбт, 03 Июл 2010, Rado S писал(а):
> Wasted effort compared to an editor macro to add some line like
> "please acknowledge receipt and respond ASAP".
> If you just want to reverse the default, add such line to your
> $signature, and delete it when not desired.
IMO the key to get response is polite
Ok, some more bashing... ;)
=- lee wrote on Fri 2.Jul'10 at 16:39:53 +0200 -=
> > > Noone using return reciepts?
> >
> > No, because if you want that, just write it in your eMail.
>
> That's awfully annoying and too easy to forget.
No, automatic return-receipts are.
If you don't have the disc
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 04:36:18PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
>On 2010-07-02, rog...@sdf.org wrote:
>> But to step aside from paranoia, it could be considered a "politeness
>> feature" as
>> it would tell a friend or significant other that you did receive their email.
>
>That's what the "r" key
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 07:40:45PM +0100, Toby Cubitt wrote:
>
> in discoursing from the armchair without actually trying to implement it,
> there are very quite likely difficulties I'm missing here.
See, it's not all that easy :) So before spending a lot of time to
figure it out, I thought it a g
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 06:23:23PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2010-07-02, lee wrote:
>
> > Having that said, it comes to mind that more users of mutt might make
> > use of return reciepts if there was well designed support for them
>
> Doubit it. Well designed support for evil is still ev
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 01:45:57PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * lee [07-02-10 13:16]:
> > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 05:15:36PM +0100, Toby Cubitt wrote:
> >
> > > the Disposition-Notification-To: header. So to request receipts, it may
> > > be sufficient to add this header to your outgoing em
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 07:13:02PM +0200, lee wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 05:15:36PM +0100, Toby Cubitt wrote:
>
> > the Disposition-Notification-To: header. So to request receipts, it may
> > be sufficient to add this header to your outgoing emails using mutt's
> > my_hdr command.
>
> That
On 2010-07-02, lee wrote:
> Having that said, it comes to mind that more users of mutt might make
> use of return reciepts if there was well designed support for them
Doubit it. Well designed support for evil is still evil.
1/2 :)
> ... One way to address privacy concerns could be, for exampl
* lee [07-02-10 13:16]:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 05:15:36PM +0100, Toby Cubitt wrote:
>
> > the Disposition-Notification-To: header. So to request receipts, it may
> > be sufficient to add this header to your outgoing emails using mutt's
> > my_hdr command.
>
> That puts the header into every o
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:11:27PM -0500, David Champion wrote:
> * On 28 Jun 2010, lee wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > how do you handle return reciepts with mutt? I know I can add header
>
> You could try Werner Koch's rfc2298 MDN patch, but afaik it has not been
> updated in years and probably needs s
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 05:15:36PM +0100, Toby Cubitt wrote:
> the Disposition-Notification-To: header. So to request receipts, it may
> be sufficient to add this header to your outgoing emails using mutt's
> my_hdr command.
That puts the header into every outgoing email, and ppl on mailing
lists
* On 28 Jun 2010, lee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> how do you handle return reciepts with mutt? I know I can add header
> lines to request a reciept (with my_hdr), but how do I make it so that
> reciepts are requested based on, for example, recipients?
You could try Werner Koch's rfc2298 MDN patch, but afai
On 2010-07-02, rog...@sdf.org wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 04:39:53PM +0200, lee wrote:
>>On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:09:22PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
>> ... snip ...
>>Besides, it's hard to believe that noone on this mailing list has use
>>for return reciepts and/or that everyone handles them manu
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 04:39:53PM +0200, lee wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:09:22PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
> > =- lee wrote on Thu 1.Jul'10 at 18:08:43 +0200 -=
> >
> > > Noone using return reciepts?
> >
> > No, because if you want that, just write it in your eMail.
>
> That's awfully annoy
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 04:39:53PM +0200, lee wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:09:22PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
> ... snip ...
>Besides, it's hard to believe that noone on this mailing list has use
>for return reciepts and/or that everyone handles them manually.
Return receipts could likely be calle
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:09:22PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
> =- lee wrote on Thu 1.Jul'10 at 18:08:43 +0200 -=
>
> > Noone using return reciepts?
>
> No, because if you want that, just write it in your eMail.
That's awfully annoying and too easy to forget. It's a common feature
in many MUAs, so mu
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 06:08:43PM +0200, lee wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:21:31PM +0200, lee wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > how do you handle return reciepts with mutt? I know I can add header
> > lines to request a reciept (with my_hdr), but how do I make it so that
> > reciepts are requested bas
Чтв, 01 Июл 2010, lee писал(а):
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:21:31PM +0200, lee wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > how do you handle return reciepts with mutt? I know I can add header
> > lines to request a reciept (with my_hdr), but how do I make it so that
> > reciepts are requested based on, for example, r
On 2010-07-01, lee wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:21:31PM +0200, lee wrote:
>> how do you handle return reciepts with mutt? I know I can add header
>> lines to request a reciept (with my_hdr), but how do I make it so that
>> reciepts are requested based on, for example, recipients?
[...]
>
=- lee wrote on Thu 1.Jul'10 at 18:08:43 +0200 -=
> Noone using return reciepts?
No, because if you want that, just write it in your eMail.
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you ge
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:21:31PM +0200, lee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> how do you handle return reciepts with mutt? I know I can add header
> lines to request a reciept (with my_hdr), but how do I make it so that
> reciepts are requested based on, for example, recipients?
>
> The idea is something like m
On 1999-11-17 19:59:24 +0100, Jan Houtsma wrote:
> Well in netscape you have the choice either a confirmation if the
> mail has been delivered (so thats the MTA) but the other is that
> the mail actually has been read. In winblows u always get a popup
> window in that case where u can say yes or
On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 06:56:40PM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 1999-11-17 12:44:25 -0500, Subba Rao wrote:
>
> > I have a question about return receipts. Are return receipts
> > handled at the client level or by the MTA?
>
> They are handled by the MTA.
>
> > If at the client level, in t
On 1999-11-17 12:44:25 -0500, Subba Rao wrote:
> I have a question about return receipts. Are return receipts
> handled at the client level or by the MTA?
They are handled by the MTA.
> If at the client level, in this case mutt, how can I return receipt
> for only address? One of my friends, se
++ 17/11/99 18:56 +0100 - Thomas Roessler:
>However, you may just add a small autoresponse function to your
>~/.procmailrc. Make sure you make this robust against mail loops!
...by adding a special field to the header by yourself and check for
that field whenever the autoresponder is invoked. So
33 matches
Mail list logo
