Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #159178 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rlharris@oplink.net |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-15 08:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-10-15 15:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 75 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 08:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 08:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 10:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 14:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 15:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 16:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-10-15 21:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 22:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 22:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 22:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 22:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 23:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-15 23:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 23:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-16 00:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 01:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-16 10:30 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-16 09:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 23:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 22:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 23:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 00:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-10-16 06:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 23:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-15 23:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 23:30 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 00:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2015-10-16 00:30 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 01:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-16 09:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 10:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-16 11:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-10-16 16:30 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-15 23:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 00:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2015-10-15 22:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 22:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 18:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-17 21:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 23:00 +0200
Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 09:10 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 12:10 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 17:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 18:00 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 18:30 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-18 21:00 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 21:20 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 22:00 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-10-19 05:50 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-19 09:30 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 09:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-19 09:30 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 09:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 09:30 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 22:00 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-18 23:50 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-19 09:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 09:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-19 18:20 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 23:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-20 09:30 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 02:10 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-10-19 10:50 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 00:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-18 01:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 09:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 09:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-10-18 10:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-17 21:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Martin Smith <lists@rakupottery.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 09:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 10:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-15 10:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 10:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 15:40 +0200
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 09:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qkQgq-6mT-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159346 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:54:27PM +0300, Reco wrote: [...] We are seriously off-topic by now. I'd propose to take this off-list. It has been hashed out to death numerous times and the result has always been well, duh, opinions differ. > You mean *this* Mail-Followup-To? > > http://paul.jakma.org/2009/07/08/mail-followup-to-considered-harmful/ > > Thanks, but no. Reply-To should be sufficient. Just because some bloke on the Internet shares your taste it doesn't mean he shares mine. Regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYjO8kACgkQBcgs9XrR2kY7zgCggYwb0/c5wGcAfTXLExraYBOO 6skAniU4E0mD2S6GR/6hNtbY+IofLcy5 =+PQ6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 12:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qkT4B-1Za-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159362 |
Hi. On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 08:27:21 +0200 <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:54:27PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > [...] > > We are seriously off-topic by now. I'd propose to take this off-list. > It has been hashed out to death numerous times and the result has > always been well, duh, opinions differ. > > > You mean *this* Mail-Followup-To? > > > > http://paul.jakma.org/2009/07/08/mail-followup-to-considered-harmful/ > > > > Thanks, but no. Reply-To should be sufficient. > > Just because some bloke on the Internet shares your taste it doesn't > mean he shares mine. True. The only problem is - this very e-mail I'm replying to does not contain Mail-Followup-To nor Followup-To :) Without a doubt it must be related to your mutt or postfix configuration somehow. Recp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 17:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qkYdZ-Wh-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159373 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 01:07:45PM +0300, Reco wrote: [Mail-Followup-T] > True. The only problem is - this very e-mail I'm replying to does not > contain Mail-Followup-To nor Followup-To :) Without a doubt it must be > related to your mutt or postfix configuration somehow. This is not a problem: *I* don't mind receiving CC. This header is a hint by the sender (in the context of a mailing list) to where (s)he expects the answers to go to. With a sensible mail reader, the responder just has to choose "respond to list" and all is well. So *you* may cc me or not, as stated in my headers (no ...followup-to). Regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYjtQ8ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kb6ogCfUkv7hBOa0ZHSGnYRR2wy+5qH y/4An3V7MB+NEoJUmNiSxHiifjv3dZXN =diuq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 18:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qkYxl-1iQ-47@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159394 |
On Sunday 18 October 2015 16:04:47 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > With a sensible mail reader, the responder just > has to choose "respond to list" and all is well. Yes. That is not the problem. The problem is responders who *deliberately* don't respond to list. You claim to know how to set one's email client to stop people responding personally. My email in response to your last doesn't seem to have got through to the list; perhaps because of the screenshot. So here it is without. On Sunday 18 October 2015 07:35:14 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:58:00PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Saturday 17 October 2015 19:38:02 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works > > > like a charm. > > > > No doubt due to my inability to configure KMail correctly it is a ***** > > nuisance. It delivers the private one and discards the one to the list. > > This is a confounded nuisance. And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC . > > We are supposed to cc only if expressly requested to do so. > > Procmail does a wonderful job of that. > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about > *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and > express this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least > *before* scolding others <:*) Taking that as personally aimed, nothing would give me greater pleasure. I am simply not technically competent enough. I refer above to "my inability to configure KMail correctly". I have a blank page in which to " define custom mime header fields", and an opportunity to use a custom message-id suffix. (See attachment.) What do I put, where, to achieve stopping these wretched cc's from landing in my private mail?? I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be discarded. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 18:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qkZ0l-25Y-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159396 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Sunday 18 October 2015 16:04:47 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > With a sensible mail reader, the responder just > > has to choose "respond to list" and all is well. > > Yes. That is not the problem. The problem is responders who *deliberately* > don't respond to list. You can't stop those. (OK, the best you can do is "social engineering", aka persuasion :) > You claim to know how to set one's email client to stop people responding > personally. My email in response to your last doesn't seem to have got > through to the list; perhaps because of the screenshot. So here it is > without. [...] > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about > > *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and > > express this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least > > *before* scolding others <:*) > > Taking that as personally aimed, nothing would give me greater pleasure. I am > simply not technically competent enough. I refer above to "my inability to > configure KMail correctly". > > I have a blank page in which to " define custom mime header fields", and an > opportunity to use a custom message-id suffix. (See attachment.) > > What do I put, where, to achieve stopping these wretched cc's from landing in > my private mail?? What you can do is, if you care, to set Mail-Followup-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org This should convince most polite MUAs to do the right thing when the user "replies to list". A more drastic measure would be to set Reply-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org That won't kill all cc's: if someone does a "group reply" and/or if the MUA is nasty enough... > I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be > discarded. The ultimate feature is just a duplicate filter (a couple of lines of procmail). You'll have to configure the "mail sorter" (you're probably using KMail) accoringly, because probably the "copy for you" will arrive earlier. See this thread in... debian-user[1], of all things (from 2003) where our ancestors hashed this out already (with some recipes). Just ask if you decide to use procmail (I am, alas, a KMail analphabet myself). [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/10/msg05065.html Regards - -- tomás > > Lisi > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYjvncACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZzaACdG9kkfwxs8ACGV64XYcEL8Gvr LoMAn2MkLSUsP9ShxFnrRnUbcOnplO4J =KS/O -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 21:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <ql1lw-5nr-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159397 |
On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>
> > I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be
> > discarded.
>
> The ultimate feature is just a duplicate filter (a couple of lines of
> procmail). You'll have to configure the "mail sorter" (you're probably
> using KMail) accoringly, because probably the "copy for you" will
> arrive earlier.
Isn't this the essence of the problem? The couple of lines of procmail
will put the first mail ("copy for you") in the inbox. The actual list
mail will probably be disposed of.
> See this thread in... debian-user[1], of all things (from 2003) where
> our ancestors hashed this out already (with some recipes). Just ask if
> you decide to use procmail (I am, alas, a KMail analphabet myself).
>
> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/10/msg05065.html
There is nothing there which I can see ensures the list mail ends up in
the list folder,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 21:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <ql1ER-61d-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159406 |
On Sunday 18 October 2015 19:55:58 Brian wrote:
> On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be
> > > discarded.
> >
> > The ultimate feature is just a duplicate filter (a couple of lines of
> > procmail). You'll have to configure the "mail sorter" (you're probably
> > using KMail) accoringly, because probably the "copy for you" will
> > arrive earlier.
>
> Isn't this the essence of the problem? The couple of lines of procmail
> will put the first mail ("copy for you") in the inbox. The actual list
> mail will probably be disposed of.
Yes, it is.
> > See this thread in... debian-user[1], of all things (from 2003) where
> > our ancestors hashed this out already (with some recipes). Just ask if
> > you decide to use procmail (I am, alas, a KMail analphabet myself).
> >
> > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/10/msg05065.html
>
> There is nothing there which I can see ensures the list mail ends up in
> the list folder,
tomas said:
Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about *not*
being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and express
this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least *before* scolding
others <:*)
Well, I am picky about not being cc'ed. I have tried to be polite. I have
asked tomas, who thinks I should do something in my headers, how to do it.
He tells me I can't. So now I feel free to "scold others".
The CoC says not to send cc's unless specifically requested. It is not a lot
to ask that people should follow the CoC. And I shall start following the
CoC and complaining, off list, every time, to everyone who cc's me. Perhaps
then they will stop this pain of a practice.
It is perfectly reasonable that people should be asked to do one of three
things:
1) subscribe
or
2) read the archives
or
3) request a copy.
Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 22:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <ql2hA-6M1-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159407 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:10:56PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Sunday 18 October 2015 19:55:58 Brian wrote: > > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: [...] > tomas said: > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about *not* > being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and express > this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least *before* scolding > others <:*) > > Well, I am picky about not being cc'ed. I have tried to be polite. I have > asked tomas, who thinks I should do something in my headers, how to do it. > He tells me I can't. So now I feel free to "scold others". Well, be fair :-) I said you can in most of the cases. > The CoC says not to send cc's unless specifically requested. It is not a lot > to ask that people should follow the CoC. And I shall start following the > CoC and complaining, off list, every time, to everyone who cc's me. Perhaps > then they will stop this pain of a practice. > > It is perfectly reasonable that people should be asked to do one of three > things: > 1) subscribe > or > 2) read the archives > or > 3) request a copy. Don't take me wrong. I think its reasonable. But I think also we should try to be gentle about it (and try to "fix" as much as possible on our sides). That's all. Regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYj8U0ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaY+QCfbQKkq5Id5FpKRTrqtEmHfDTq yoYAnAhMGs4Z+UiAfsz9sK4X2N1Ls2Zr =rY1A -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 05:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <ql9Cp-Po-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159411 |
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > tomas said: > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about *not* > > being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and express > > this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least *before* scolding > > others <:*) > > Don't take me wrong. I think its reasonable. But I think also we should try > to be gentle about it (and try to "fix" as much as possible on our sides). So you're saying that someone who is following the code should go out of their way to accomodate the ones who won't follow the code? -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 09:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qld3j-5Uj-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159425 |
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:47:02 +1300 Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > tomas said: > > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky > > > about *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do > > > his/her part and express this wish with the headers in use for > > > this purpose. At least *before* scolding others <:*) > > > > Don't take me wrong. I think its reasonable. But I think also we > > should try to be gentle about it (and try to "fix" as much as > > possible on our sides). > > So you're saying that someone who is following the code should go out > of their way to accomodate the ones who won't follow the code? > A little way, not too far. It's not really a matter of getting one more unsolicited email in this day and age, the point of this kind of list is to stand as an archive, so that the various answers to the questions, and just as importantly, the wanderings down the byways, remain to help others in the future. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 09:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qldd0-65B-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159431 |
On Monday 19 October 2015 08:28:16 Joe wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:47:02 +1300 > > Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > tomas said: > > > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky > > > > about *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do > > > > his/her part and express this wish with the headers in use for > > > > this purpose. At least *before* scolding others <:*) > > > > > > Don't take me wrong. I think its reasonable. But I think also we > > > should try to be gentle about it (and try to "fix" as much as > > > possible on our sides). > > > > So you're saying that someone who is following the code should go out > > of their way to accomodate the ones who won't follow the code? > > A little way, not too far. > > It's not really a matter of getting one more unsolicited email in > this day and age, the point of this kind of list is to stand as an > archive, so that the various answers to the questions, and just as > importantly, the wanderings down the byways, remain to help others in > the future. Quite. And that will only work if people reply to list and do not break the threads. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 09:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qld3j-5Uj-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159425 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 04:47:02PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > tomas said: > > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about *not* > > > being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and express > > > this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least *before* scolding > > > others <:*) [...] > So you're saying that someone who is following the code should go out > of their way to accomodate the ones who won't follow the code? *sigh* I give up. Do whatever you want. - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYkkhkACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZiuACfaw5Orylpi4kMM9V5R4HU/srp SLUAni7p9umRSJgIH5NlLhS0GQ3PGnUV =Dqk6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 09:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qldd0-65B-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159433 |
On Monday 19 October 2015 07:47:53 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 04:47:02PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > tomas said: > > > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky > > > > about *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do > > > > his/her part and express this wish with the headers in use for this > > > > purpose. At least *before* scolding others <:*) > > [...] > > > So you're saying that someone who is following the code should go out > > of their way to accomodate the ones who won't follow the code? > > *sigh* > > I give up. Do whatever you want. Of course Chris will do what he wants, and not what you want. Why should he do anything else? But you are *still* not following the code. You have addressed that to Chris with a cc to the list. You seem to think that you should dictate how the list behaves and that the CoC is an aberration that OUGHT to be ignored. As I said to you, "you are sending them (these double copies) deliberately, and being a nuisance deliberately. Another word for that is trolling." Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 09:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qld3j-5Uj-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159411 |
On Sunday 18 October 2015 20:21:49 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:10:56PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Sunday 18 October 2015 19:55:58 Brian wrote: > > > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > [...] > > > tomas said: > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about > > *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and > > express this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least > > *before* scolding others <:*) > > > > Well, I am picky about not being cc'ed. I have tried to be polite. I > > have asked tomas, who thinks I should do something in my headers, how to > > do it. He tells me I can't. So now I feel free to "scold others". > > Well, be fair :-) I said you can in most of the cases. No you didn't. You said that I should be polite and "express this wish with the headers in use for this purpose", but you have no idea how this can be done. See above. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 22:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <ql2hA-6M1-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159406 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 07:55:58PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> >
> > > I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be
> > > discarded.
> >
> > The ultimate feature is just a duplicate filter (a couple of lines of
> > procmail). You'll have to configure the "mail sorter" (you're probably
> > using KMail) accoringly, because probably the "copy for you" will
> > arrive earlier.
>
> Isn't this the essence of the problem? The couple of lines of procmail
> will put the first mail ("copy for you") in the inbox. The actual list
> mail will probably be disposed of.
You have to refine your filters a bit, but it's definitely possible.
> > See this thread in... debian-user[1], of all things (from 2003) where
> > our ancestors hashed this out already (with some recipes). Just ask if
> > you decide to use procmail (I am, alas, a KMail analphabet myself).
> >
> > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/10/msg05065.html
>
> There is nothing there which I can see ensures the list mail ends up in
> the list folder,
That's right. But you can catch most of it.
Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlYj8FoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaONgCdEBjXM/jVsRNwIf1aCAWf1j1U
IzoAn33qRNJSjs+zO7luvgu2zX2zp/hU
=6UtH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 23:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <ql402-ZA-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159412 |
On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 21:17:46 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 07:55:58PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be
> > > > discarded.
> > >
> > > The ultimate feature is just a duplicate filter (a couple of lines of
> > > procmail). You'll have to configure the "mail sorter" (you're probably
> > > using KMail) accoringly, because probably the "copy for you" will
> > > arrive earlier.
> >
> > Isn't this the essence of the problem? The couple of lines of procmail
> > will put the first mail ("copy for you") in the inbox. The actual list
> > mail will probably be disposed of.
>
> You have to refine your filters a bit, but it's definitely possible.
I know it is, but not with a simple three or four line procmail recipe
alone.
> > > See this thread in... debian-user[1], of all things (from 2003) where
> > > our ancestors hashed this out already (with some recipes). Just ask if
> > > you decide to use procmail (I am, alas, a KMail analphabet myself).
> > >
> > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/10/msg05065.html
> >
> > There is nothing there which I can see ensures the list mail ends up in
> > the list folder,
>
> That's right. But you can catch most of it.
Even if "most" is possible it is not good enough.
A thread of more recent vintage is at
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2013/03/msg00012.html
There is a technique (and an implementation of it) described which
ensures list mails get to a list folder and CCs are deleted. See what
you think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 09:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qldd0-65B-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159417 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:41:38PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 21:17:46 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: [...] > > You have to refine your filters a bit, but it's definitely possible. > > I know it is, but not with a simple three or four line procmail recipe > alone. [...] > > That's right. But you can catch most of it. > > Even if "most" is possible it is not good enough. > > A thread of more recent vintage is at > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2013/03/msg00012.html > > There is a technique (and an implementation of it) described which > ensures list mails get to a list folder and CCs are deleted. See what > you think. Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's all. regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEUEARECAAYFAlYklFoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kawxACdF6eGPwGAm1jjH8MSmB883nlX b2sAmJtoDg2KS/TFhvKhnIFFn8z79So= =z8v8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 09:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qldd0-65B-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159434 |
On Monday 19 October 2015 07:57:30 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should > be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this > CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's all. Hallelujah! Thank you, tomas. That went to the list only, with nary a sign of a copy to Brian. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 18:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qllke-19s-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159436 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:39:13AM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Monday 19 October 2015 07:57:30 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should
> > be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this
> > CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's all.
>
> Hallelujah! Thank you, tomas. That went to the list only, with nary a sign
> of a copy to Brian.
Well, that's embarrasing. Turns out I had a mistake in my setup.
I owe you a $BEVERAGE of your choice (whithin reasonable bounds ;-) -- so
if you run into me in one of the usual conferences, go ahead!
Believe me or not -- it was never my intention to troll. Hanlon's razor[1]
applies.
[1] "Never attribute to malice what can appropriately be explained by
stupidity"
Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlYlDacACgkQBcgs9XrR2kY2wACfQEW4VB/TJhhn352KnlNWHPyZ
b+kAn1GjEDCP8wCJ2L2vTUhDB7nNixLE
=V4re
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 23:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] |
| Message-ID | <qlqjU-8tO-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159457 |
On Monday 19 October 2015 16:35:03 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:39:13AM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Monday 19 October 2015 07:57:30 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should > > > be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this > > > CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's > > > all. > > > > Hallelujah! Thank you, tomas. That went to the list only, with nary a > > sign of a copy to Brian. > > Well, that's embarrasing. Turns out I had a mistake in my setup. > > I owe you a $BEVERAGE of your choice (whithin reasonable bounds ;-) -- so > if you run into me in one of the usual conferences, go ahead! Thank you! I accept. Fortunately for you, and sadly for me, I'm not allowed by my doctors to drink Chateau d'Yquem, so I shall have to toast you in fizzy mineral water. > Believe me or not -- it was never my intention to troll. I do believe you! Though how on earth you managed to sit through what we were saying, and especially what I was saying off list, without checking your headers or settings, does somewhat bemuse me. :-/ The trouble is, I know what I mean to type, so that is what I see. Presumably you knew what your settings were supposed to be, so that is what you saw. > Hanlon's razor[1] > applies. > > [1] "Never attribute to malice what can appropriately be explained by > stupidity" The older I get, the truer I see that that is. I apologise for misspelling your name. That is something I try to be meticulous about, but I had never till now noticed the accent. Though I had noticed that you do not use an initial capital. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web