On 10/30/2006 8:05 AM, Gale, David wrote:
> Tremal Naik wrote:
>> Apologise if this message is inappropriate.
>> I noticed that simply replying to a message in this mailing list
>> doesn't actually send the reply to the subversion mailing list, but
>> only to the user who originally posted the message.
>> Is this a behaviour that occurs only to me? Or is a custom use of this
>> list to hit the "reply all" to send back the responses to the public
>> list as well?
>> This would be different from all the lists I subscribed before. And it
>> requires the user remembers to hit the correct button. Which hardly
>> happens if you are used to send/receive many email messages.
> Oddly enough, that's the way the list is designed, and mentioning it (or
> suggesting that a flag of some sort, say "[SVN-ML]", be added to the
> subject line of mailing list e-mails) tends to bring out the people who
> clearly think that a) all other mailing lists (which have the list in
> the "From" field, and which flag their messages in the subject line) are
> broken, because there's no official standard which requires it,
Assuming you didn't just mistype those parentheses: It's not at all
true that all other mailing lists put the list in the From field. Moat
of those I subscribe to do what this list does. Only one or two don't.
I prefer the ones that put the author in the From field, because my
mail reader displays Subject, Sender (the From field), Date, and I like
to know who wrote each message.
> one of the more common mail readers (Outlook/Outlook Express) is broken
> because it doesn't give its users access to portions of the message
> header which indicate that the messages really are from the mailing
> list. And suggesting that changing the way the list operates to conform
> more to standard usage, even if not strictly necessary according to
> "official" web standards, is frowned upon.
I think you're wrong that sending "From: firstname.lastname@example.org"
would be standard.
I think adding a marker to the subject line is pretty standard, and
would be a good idea.
> As you may have guessed, I think that this attitude is hopelessly
> backwards, unhelpful, and simply annoying. (The vast majority of the
> e-mail traffic I get from this list ends up in my spam filter; it'd be
> trivial to ask the guy managing the e-mail system to "whitelist" a
> specific address, or even a certain string in the subject line, but I
> haven't been able to get him to whitelist based on hidden fields in the
> message headers.
Now I can't resist pointing out that it's you (or your company) who have
decided to hide those fields. At the time the message leaves the
mailing list server, all fields are visible. It's a user agent decision
to hide some of them.
> This is a remarkable inconvenience, and has
> periodically made me question the worth of being on the list, though I
> haven't yet reached the point where it outweighs the periodically useful
> information I get from it.) But, unfortunately, those zealots are loud
> enough that the maintainers of the list have consistently refused to
> change the system.
Perhaps you should limit your request to something that wouldn't
inconvenience others, e.g. to putting the [svn] label in the subject line.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Mon Oct 30 14:41:26 2006