Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I think this is the crux of the problem --- if I subscribed to multiple
> email lists, and some have "rely" going to the list and some have
> "reply" going to the author, I would have to think about the right reply
> option every time I send email.
That's not really the cas
Am 2008-10-23 15:52:30, schrieb ries van Twisk:
> anyways.. I don't care anymore... I will do a reply all.
I do normaly: killall ;-)
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Cons
Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
On 23/10/2008 19:09, Angel Alvarez wrote:
No one, ive seen, seems to be perfect nor thunderbird.
By the way kmail has 4 options (reply, reply to all, reply to author, reply to list)
in addition to be able to use list headers included in the message.
Here's a "reply
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:42 AM, ries van Twisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 23, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Collin Kidder wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>>
Mikkel is right, every other well-organized mailing list I've ever been
on handles things the sensible way he suggests, but
)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:54:41 +0200
From: "Dave Coventry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steve Atkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
Cc: "pgsql-general General"
In-Reply-To: <[EMAI
2008/10/23 Steve Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If you don't like it (and this applies to everyone else arguing about it, on
> either side) please do one of these three things:
>
> 1. "Fix" it locally at your end, as is trivial to do with procmail, amongst
> other approaches, and quit whining about
On Oct 23, 2008, at 3:44 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Angel Alvarez wrote:
horse. Since I use the most advanced e-mail client on the
market I just
work around that the settings here are weird
What's such most advanced mail reader??
That quoted bit was actually from me, I
Greg Smith escribió:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Angel Alvarez wrote:
>
> horse. Since I use the most advanced e-mail client on the market I just
> work around that the settings here are weird
>>
>> What's such most advanced mail reader??
>
> That quoted bit was actually from me, I was hoping t
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Angel Alvarez wrote:
horse. Since I use the most advanced e-mail client on the market I just
work around that the settings here are weird
What's such most advanced mail reader??
That quoted bit was actually from me, I was hoping to get a laugh out of
anyone who actuall
On Oct 23, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Collin Kidder wrote:
Angel Alvarez wrote:
Well
but the RFC's were in fact prior to thunderbird
So for he most of its life, when few people was using it,
Thiunderbird was a sad example of your botched attempt of creating a
standar of NOT FOLLOWING THE RFC's...
Angel Alvarez wrote:
Well
but the RFC's were in fact prior to thunderbird
So for he most of its life, when few people was using it,
Thiunderbird was a sad example of your botched attempt of creating a
standar of NOT FOLLOWING THE RFC's...
But, as I mentioned, nobody cares about this particu
Well
but the RFC's were in fact prior to thunderbird
So for he most of its life, when few people was using it,
Thiunderbird was a sad example of your botched attempt of creating a
standar of NOT FOLLOWING THE RFC's...
Well, also M$ thought they invented internet so its a common mistake.
May be
Angel Alvarez wrote:
What's such most advanced mail reader??
No one, ive seen, seems to be perfect nor thunderbird.
By the way kmail has 4 options (reply, reply to all, reply to author, reply to list)
in addition to be able to use list headers included in the message.
in fact many other mail-
On 23/10/2008 19:09, Angel Alvarez wrote:
> No one, ive seen, seems to be perfect nor thunderbird.
> By the way kmail has 4 options (reply, reply to all, reply to author, reply
> to list)
> in addition to be able to use list headers included in the message.
Here's a "reply to list" add-on for
El Jueves 23 Octubre 2008 Collin Kidder escribió:
> >> horse. Since I use the most advanced e-mail client on the market I just
> >> work around that the settings here are weird, it does annoy me a bit
> >> anytime I stop to think about it though.
What's such most advanced mail reader??
No one
On Thursday 23 October 2008, Collin Kidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You must use Reply All. You
> might say that that makes Thunderbird crippled but I see it more as a
> sign that nobody outside of a few fussy RFC worshipping types would ever
> want the behavior of the Postgre list. Yes, I'll h
On Oct 23, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Collin Kidder wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Mikkel is right, every other well-organized mailing list I've ever
been on handles things the sensible way he suggests, but everybody
on his side who's been on lists here for a while already knows
this issue is a de
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Mikkel is right, every other well-organized mailing list I've ever been on
handles things the sensible way he suggests, but everybody on his side
who's been on lists here for a while already knows this issue is a dead
horse. Since I use the most advanced e-mail client on
Greg Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Bill Moran wrote:
>
> > You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal thing. It's personal
> > because you are the only one complaining about it. Despite the large
> > number of people on this list, I don't see anyone jumping in to defend
> > you.
>
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
But now, if the list munged my reply-to, how would you get back to me?
Why'd you have to interrupt a perfectly good, unwinnable idealogical
argument with a technical question? While there is only one reply-to
allowed for a message, you can put multi
Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
But now, if the list munged my reply-to, how would you get back to me?
I wouldn't ;). The whole point of a mailing list is to have discussions
with the list. If I wanted to correspond with you directly, I wouldn't
use the list for that.
--
Guy Rouillier
--
Sent via p
* Guy Rouillier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081001 00:00]:
> Bill Moran wrote:
> >You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal thing. It's personal
> >because you are the only one complaining about it. Despite the large
> >number of people on this list, I don't see anyone jumping in to defend
> >y
On Friday 17 October 2008 22:01:33 Guy Rouillier wrote:
> When I use "Reply All" in Thunderbird, it adds a "To:" to each of the
> individuals in the discussion, and a "CC:" to the list. Since I
> personally don't like receiving multiple copies of emails from this
> list, I delete all of the "To:"
Sender does not
endorse distribution to any party other than intended recipient. Sender does
not necessarily endorse content contained within this transmission.
> Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 03:50:07 +0200
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENER
Am 2008-10-17 08:42:46, schrieb Andrew Sullivan:
> My suggestion would be to use a mail user agent that knows how to read
> the list headers, which were standardized many years ago. Then you
> "reply to list". Mutt has done this for at least a few years now. I
> don't know about other MUAs.
N.C
Am 2008-10-17 08:12:00, schrieb Scott Marlowe:
> I prefer the list the way it is. And so do a very large, very silent
> majority of users.
I agree with you.
I am on Mailinglist since I use the Internet (1995) and there are not
very much mailinglists which manipulate the "Reply-To:" Header...
Hi Martinn, here the great Dictator Michelle!
Am 2008-10-17 10:24:44, schrieb Martin Gainty:
>
> free unfettered and open discussion without interference from ANY entity is a
> requirement of a democracy
> the REAL question is ..is this a democracy???
Shut-Up or I will install you Micr0$of SQL
I am not fond of this approach either. I never find myself replying
directly to the poster.
I actually greatly prefer forums which email me a copy of every post
with a nice link to the original thread. 95% of the time I do not even
need to use the link. The latest posting is enough.
This
I am a member of a number of lists, some of which exhibit this
'reply-to' behaviour and I have also managed to adapt... to a point.
Sometimes, however, I do end up replying directly to the poster rather
than through the list. Tellingly, I very nearly sent this post
directly to Serge Fonvilee.
Wit
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Serge Fonville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Altough I am not sure what the real issue is,I do know that on (for
> example) the tomcat mailing list, when I choose reply (in gmail) the to:
> field contains the address of the mailing list.
> Based on what I know, this
Guy Rouillier wrote:
> When I use "Reply All" in Thunderbird, it adds a "To:" to each of the
> individuals in the discussion, and a "CC:" to the list. Since I
> personally don't like receiving multiple copies of emails from this
> list, I delete all of the "To:" addressees and change the li
Bill Moran wrote:
You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal thing. It's personal
because you are the only one complaining about it. Despite the large
number of people on this list, I don't see anyone jumping in to defend
you.
I'm another in the crowd that had this same discussion whe
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
There is therefore a mail standards reason not to munge the headers, and
it rests in the rules about origin fields and in the potential for lost
functionality.
I should have included the standard links to both sides of this
discussion:
http://www
* Ivan Sergio Borgonovo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'd say because postgresql list has been used to it by a longer time
> than most of the new comers doing the other way around did. But it
> seems that the new comers are the most vocal.
sigh. First people complain that poor Mikkel is the only o
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:56:34 -0400
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Bill Moran ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal thing. It's
> > personal because you are the only one complaining about it.
> > Despite the large number of people on this l
Sigh...
wasting another junk of bandwidth with this bike shed discussion
Granted, replying here is more annoying and less convenient compared to other
lists -
as long as your MUA still does not provide decent support for mailing lists.
Down back from 1998 is RFC 2369 that defined additional
Scott Marlowe escribió:
> I really do prefer the way this list works because when I hit reply
> all to a discussion with "Bob Smith and Postgresql-general" I know
> that Bob gets a direct answer from me, now, when he needs it at 2am
> when his servers are puking their data out their gigE ports, an
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 8:24 AM, Martin Gainty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> free unfettered and open discussion without interference from ANY entity is
> a requirement of a democracy
> the REAL question is ..is this a democracy???
No, it's a well mostly well behaved meritocracy. And I prefer that
Martin Gainty escribió:
>
> free unfettered and open discussion without interference from ANY
> entity is a requirement of a democracy the REAL question is ..is this
> a democracy???
_Of course_ it isn't ... (thankfully!)
--
Alvaro Herrera
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general
CC: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Annoying Reply-To
> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:15:20 +0200
>
> On 17/10/2008, at 16.12, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Collin Kidder &
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Mikkel Høgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17/10/2008, at 16.12, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Collin Kidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I was going to stay out of this but I'll jump in and defend him. The
>>> people
>>> on this
On 17/10/2008, at 16.12, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Collin Kidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I was going to stay out of this but I'll jump in and defend him.
The people
on this list are so pedantic, so sure that their way is the only
way that
they absolutely rain
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Collin Kidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was going to stay out of this but I'll jump in and defend him. The people
> on this list are so pedantic, so sure that their way is the only way that
> they absolutely rain nuclear fire down on anyone who dares to disagre
I resent that you're trying to make this a personal thing.
I was going to answer the rest of this email, then I realized that the
real problem was right here, and discussing anything else was dancing
around the issue and wasting time.
You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal th
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 09:27:46AM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> Mikkel is right, every other well-organized mailing list I've ever been on
> handles things the sensible way he suggests, but everybody on his side
They may be well-organized, but they're doing bad things to the mail
headers. RFC 53
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Bill Moran wrote:
You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal thing. It's personal
because you are the only one complaining about it. Despite the large
number of people on this list, I don't see anyone jumping in to defend
you.
Mikkel is right, every other well-or
* Bill Moran ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> You can resent it or not, but this _is_ a personal thing. It's personal
> because you are the only one complaining about it. Despite the large
> number of people on this list, I don't see anyone jumping in to defend
> you.
Ugh. No one else is jumping in
In response to "Mikkel Høgh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 17/10/2008, at 14.01, Bill Moran wrote:
>
> > Or, you could just be lonely.
>
> I resent that you're trying to make this a personal thing.
I was going to answer the rest of this email, then I realized that the
real problem was right here,
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 01:02:57PM +0200, Mikkel Høgh wrote:
> Yay, even more manual labour instead of having the computers doing the work
> for us. What's your next suggestion, go back to pen and paper?
My suggestion would be to use a mail user agent that knows how to read
the list headers, whic
On 17/10/2008, at 14.06, Tom Lane wrote:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mikkel_H=F8gh?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yay, even more manual labour instead of having the computers doing
the
work for us. What's your next suggestion, go back to pen and paper?
Please stop wasting everyone's time with this. The
On 17/10/2008, at 14.01, Bill Moran wrote:
In response to "Mikkel Høgh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 17/10/2008, at 13.20, Bill Moran wrote:
In response to "Mikkel Høgh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 17/10/2008, at 12.24, Tomasz Ostrowski wrote:
But again, how often do you want to give a personal r
On Oct 17, 2008, at 8:01 , Bill Moran wrote:
In response to "Mikkel Høgh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
but having to manually add a Reply-To
header to each message I send to pgsql-general is not my idea of fun.
I was not aware that Apple Mail was such a primitive email client.
You
should conside
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mikkel_H=F8gh?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yay, even more manual labour instead of having the computers doing the
> work for us. What's your next suggestion, go back to pen and paper?
Please stop wasting everyone's time with this. The list policy has
been debated adequately in
In response to "Mikkel Høgh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 17/10/2008, at 13.20, Bill Moran wrote:
>
> > In response to "Mikkel Høgh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >> On 17/10/2008, at 12.24, Tomasz Ostrowski wrote:
> >>
> >> But again, how often do you want to give a personal reply only? That
> >> is
On 17/10/2008, at 13.20, Bill Moran wrote:
In response to "Mikkel Høgh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 17/10/2008, at 12.24, Tomasz Ostrowski wrote:
But again, how often do you want to give a personal reply only? That
is a valid use-case, but I'd say amongst the hundreds of mailing-list
replies I'
In response to "Mikkel Høgh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 17/10/2008, at 12.24, Tomasz Ostrowski wrote:
>
> > On 2008-10-17 12:13, Mikkel Høgh wrote:
> >
> >>> You're supposed to use "Reply to all" if you want to reply to the
> >>> list.
> >>
> >> Well, I think the most common use case for a mail
56 matches
Mail list logo
