Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #166926 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-22 02:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-04-23 14:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 97 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-22 02:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Harris Paltrowitz <harris1nyc@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 03:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-22 04:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Michael Milliman <michael.e.milliman@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 06:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2016-04-22 08:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Mimiko <vbvbrj@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 08:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2016-04-22 08:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Mimiko <vbvbrj@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 15:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 18:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-23 00:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-04-23 01:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <garyroach@verizon.net> - 2016-04-30 00:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Stephen Allen <marathon.durandal@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 00:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-30 02:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-04-30 12:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-04-30 16:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 16:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-04-30 21:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-30 21:10 +0200
Re: pastebinning (was: Posts don't show on list) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-04-30 21:20 +0200
Re: pastebinning (was: Posts don't show on list) cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2016-05-10 20:20 +0200
Re: pastebinning (was: Posts don't show on list) Michael Fothergill <michael.fothergill@googlemail.com> - 2016-05-10 20:50 +0200
Re: pastebinning (was: Posts don't show on list) Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2016-05-10 22:10 +0200
Re: pastebinning (was: Posts don't show on list) Michael Fothergill <michael.fothergill@googlemail.com> - 2016-05-10 22:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-04-30 21:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-30 22:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-05-01 00:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-05-01 00:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-05-01 03:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 13:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-05-01 18:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 19:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-05-02 04:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 10:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-05-02 13:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 13:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> - 2016-04-30 01:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-04-30 01:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 08:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2016-04-23 06:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2016-04-22 09:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-04-22 09:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Harris Paltrowitz <harrisupstate@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-22 13:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-04-22 13:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-04-22 14:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-04-22 14:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-04-22 15:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-04-22 15:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-04-22 16:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-04-22 16:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 19:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Marc Shapiro <marcnshap@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 08:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Marc Shapiro <marcnshap@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 08:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Stephen Allen <marathon.durandal@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 01:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-28 03:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Stephen Allen <marathon.durandal@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 18:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-28 21:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Marc Shapiro <marcnshap@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 03:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Stephen Allen <marathon.durandal@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 00:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-04-30 02:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 08:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-04-30 14:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 15:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-04-30 18:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 23:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-05-01 00:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Mike McGinn <mikemcginn@mcginnweb.net> - 2016-05-01 01:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 01:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-05-01 01:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Stephen Allen <marathon.durandal@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 22:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 18:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-04-22 19:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 19:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-04-22 21:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-04-23 00:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 01:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-04-22 14:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2016-04-23 13:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Harris Paltrowitz <harrisupstate@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-22 14:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-04-22 14:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-04-22 11:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-04-22 10:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-04-22 11:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-04-22 13:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-04-22 18:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-04-22 19:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2016-04-23 06:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2016-04-23 13:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-04-23 14:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-04-22 21:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-22 21:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-04-22 21:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2016-04-23 14:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-04-22 21:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-04-22 22:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-04-23 01:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2016-04-23 14:00 +0200
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 09:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqDei-697-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166933 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 08:57:51 +0300
Mimiko <vbvbrj@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Mimiko,
>I've never seen my own posts nor in this list, nor in other lists
Like I said to Michael; gmail.
I find it surprising, to say the least, that, even after all this time,
some people still do not know that gmail does not return list posts to
the writer.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
I ain't got no time for intellectual music, e.g. Hergest Ridge
Heads Down No Nonsense Mindless Boogie - Alberto y Lost Trios Paranoias
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 09:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqDQZ-6K0-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166936 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 07:55:59AM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote: > On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 08:57:51 +0300 > Mimiko <vbvbrj@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Mimiko, > > >I've never seen my own posts nor in this list, nor in other lists > > Like I said to Michael; gmail. > > I find it surprising, to say the least, that, even after all this time, > some people still do not know that gmail does not return list posts to > the writer. Very funny (for some value of funny) is when gmail users repeat themselves repeat themselves because they think the message didn't go through first time. Somehow Google should pay for the bandwidth they wasted by unleashing this "feature" on humankind. - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlcZ1PIACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbR8wCfRmA0UR8bR7/FYg2TFcxxEG4i D8AAmgJYaSai12znTvLV8yG8n9xCoHCs =EFuk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Harris Paltrowitz <harrisupstate@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 13:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqHrC-1aV-85@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166936 |
On 04/22/2016 02:55 AM, Brad Rogers wrote: > On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 08:57:51 +0300 > Mimiko <vbvbrj@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Mimiko, > >> I've never seen my own posts nor in this list, nor in other lists > Like I said to Michael; gmail. > > I find it surprising, to say the least, that, even after all this time, > some people still do not know that gmail does not return list posts to > the writer. > I also didn't know this... I guess I just don't use mailing lists very much these days. I actually find it surprising that this issue can't be controlled at the Debian list server level. I'm sure I just don't understand the issue completely enough, but still, I would think that somehow it should be controllable at the server level. Regardless, I've just switched to using another email account for posting to this list. Cheers Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 13:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqHKW-1ip-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166951 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 07:25:25AM -0400, Harris Paltrowitz wrote: > > On 04/22/2016 02:55 AM, Brad Rogers wrote: > >On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 08:57:51 +0300 > >Mimiko <vbvbrj@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >Hello Mimiko, > > > >>I've never seen my own posts nor in this list, nor in other lists > >Like I said to Michael; gmail. > > > >I find it surprising, to say the least, that, even after all this time, > >some people still do not know that gmail does not return list posts to > >the writer. > > > > I also didn't know this... I guess I just don't use mailing lists > very much these days. > > I actually find it surprising that this issue can't be controlled at > the Debian list server level. If the client refuses to show you a mail, how would you go about to solve it at the server level? And... would you want to complicate a server setup just to cater to some client idiosyncracy? (Note that I don't have any direct experience with gmail, so what I know is just hearsay, but it explains nicely why folks on gmail have some tendency to... stutter) regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlcaD30ACgkQBcgs9XrR2ka89gCfdqh9Xpd/DkWp/kuN+KV0RmHi 5pcAnjNRc78gTXwEra0FWlX6C35dj8Uv =VGG0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 14:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqIdZ-1Ko-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166954 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2016-04-22 at 07:48, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 07:25:25AM -0400, Harris Paltrowitz wrote: > >> On 04/22/2016 02:55 AM, Brad Rogers wrote: >>> I find it surprising, to say the least, that, even after all this >>> time, some people still do not know that gmail does not return >>> list posts to the writer. >> >> I also didn't know this... I guess I just don't use mailing lists >> very much these days. >> >> I actually find it surprising that this issue can't be controlled >> at the Debian list server level. > > If the client refuses to show you a mail, how would you go about to > solve it at the server level? In this case, what appears to happen is that Gmail assumes that Message-ID is unique, and consequently that it only needs to keep one copy of a message with any given Message-ID. Since the person sending a mail already has one message with that Message-ID (in their Sent folder), Gmail sees the incoming mail as a duplicate, and discards it. This means that the mailing-list software _could_ technically work around this behavior by modifying the Message-ID of the received message before it sends that message out to list members. That strikes me as a dreadful idea from a design perspective, however, even just on basic principle.... > And... would you want to complicate a server setup just to cater to > some client idiosyncracy? ...so my answer to this would be "definitely not". -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 14:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqInE-1Q8-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166957 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Le quartidi 4 floréal, an CCXXIV, The Wanderer a écrit : > This means that the mailing-list software _could_ technically work > around this behavior by modifying the Message-ID of the received message > before it sends that message out to list members. > > That strikes me as a dreadful idea from a design perspective, however, > even just on basic principle.... Well, breaking things for everybody (including gmail users, since that would separate the sent mail from the resulting thread) just in order to fix a minor annoyance for some users. I think "dreadful" does not just cover it. And it would probably not work anyways since gmail tries to be smarter than using the message-id to identify mails and threads. As expected that results in it being stupid. And after all, gmail users, you just wrote the mail, why would you need it to appear as new, except for checking it arrived?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 15:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqIQG-234-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166958 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2016-04-22 at 08:20, Nicolas George wrote: > Le quartidi 4 floréal, an CCXXIV, The Wanderer a écrit : > >> This means that the mailing-list software _could_ technically work >> around this behavior by modifying the Message-ID of the received >> message before it sends that message out to list members. >> >> That strikes me as a dreadful idea from a design perspective, >> however, even just on basic principle.... > > Well, breaking things for everybody (including gmail users, since > that would separate the sent mail from the resulting thread) just in > order to fix a minor annoyance for some users. I think "dreadful" > does not just cover it. If the list software did this modification for _all_ messages, not just ones from Gmail addresses, I don't see how it would break threading; all received messages would be modified suitably (assuming you munged the References and In-Reply-To and similar headers to match), all recipients would see a consistent data set, and their clients could work with the result normally. That doesn't make it any less dreadful, however. > And it would probably not work anyways since gmail tries to be > smarter than using the message-id to identify mails and threads. As > expected that results in it being stupid. Interesting. Do you have any evidence for the idea that it uses more than just Message-ID? I can't prove that it doesn't, but I've never seen anything that I recall to indicate that it does. > And after all, gmail users, you just wrote the mail, why would you > need it to appear as new, except for checking it arrived? For myself, one major reason (not the only one) is that the received copy is often different from the sent copy - modified message headers (e.g. by adding List-ID), added mailing-list footer, et cetera. (The fact that Gmail treats messages with these differences as identical is part of why I think they rely on Message-ID for their differentiation.) -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 15:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqJjJ-2A9-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166963 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Le quartidi 4 floréal, an CCXXIV, The Wanderer a écrit : > If the list software did this modification for _all_ messages, not just > ones from Gmail addresses, I don't see how it would break threading It breaks it for the *senders*: they would have the message in their "sent" archive with the message-id chosen by the MUA and the rest of the thread connected to the message (in-reply-to and references) with a different message-id. > Interesting. Do you have any evidence for the idea that it uses more > than just Message-ID? I can't prove that it doesn't, but I've never seen > anything that I recall to indicate that it does. A long time ago, I experimented with in-reply-to and references in order to see how gmail decided if a mail belongs in a thread, and my conclusion was that it relied more on the subject field than anything else. It was a long time ago. > For myself, one major reason (not the only one) is that the received > copy is often different from the sent copy - modified message headers > (e.g. by adding List-ID), added mailing-list footer, et cetera. True. A gamil users could check to see if it is possible to obtain that information. I suspect the misfeature belongs in gmail's web interface, actually, and the mails are really present in the archive and accessible through IMAP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 16:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqJML-2OK-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166966 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2016-04-22 at 09:20, Nicolas George wrote: > Le quartidi 4 floréal, an CCXXIV, The Wanderer a écrit : >> If the list software did this modification for _all_ messages, not >> just ones from Gmail addresses, I don't see how it would break >> threading > > It breaks it for the *senders*: they would have the message in their > "sent" archive with the message-id chosen by the MUA and the rest of > the thread connected to the message (in-reply-to and references) with > a different message-id. I'm not sure this would actually manifest the way you're describing it - but I'm not positive it wouldn't, either, and I don't care to invest the brainpower in working it out for certain right now. >> Interesting. Do you have any evidence for the idea that it uses >> more than just Message-ID? I can't prove that it doesn't, but I've >> never seen anything that I recall to indicate that it does. > > A long time ago, I experimented with in-reply-to and references in > order to see how gmail decided if a mail belongs in a thread, and my > conclusion was that it relied more on the subject field than anything > else. It was a long time ago. For threading, you're probably right. For message uniqueness for its duplicate filtering, however, the Subject obviously isn't enough to go on - and I strongly suspect that Message-ID is the key. >> For myself, one major reason (not the only one) is that the >> received copy is often different from the sent copy - modified >> message headers (e.g. by adding List-ID), added mailing-list >> footer, et cetera. > > True. A gamil users could check to see if it is possible to obtain > that information. I suspect the misfeature belongs in gmail's web > interface, actually, and the mails are really present in the archive > and accessible through IMAP. Nope - or if so, it's either a new-these-last-few-years development, or for some reason specific to just IMAP. I access my sole Gmail account via POP3, and the "duplicate" messages don't come through there either - or at least they didn't back in 2009, I don't often send mail through that account (for this very reason). I think this really is an "optimization" on Google's end, to save on storage space since they can already show the "same" message in the right place thanks to their Web interface's fancy search wrangling. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 16:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqJWq-3bR-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166969 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Le quartidi 4 floréal, an CCXXIV, The Wanderer a écrit : > I'm not sure this would actually manifest the way you're describing it - > but I'm not positive it wouldn't, either, and I don't care to invest the > brainpower in working it out for certain right now. Actually, it is even worse than I suggested: mails can be CC to other people than the list. These people would see the message-id chosen by the MUA, but when someone on the list replies, the in-reply-to would be the message-id chosen by the list. > For threading, you're probably right. For message uniqueness for its > duplicate filtering, however, the Subject obviously isn't enough to go > on - and I strongly suspect that Message-ID is the key. I strongly suspect it is much more complicated than that. It always is with google. > Nope - or if so, it's either a new-these-last-few-years development, or > for some reason specific to just IMAP. I access my sole Gmail account > via POP3, and the "duplicate" messages don't come through there either - > or at least they didn't back in 2009, I don't often send mail through > that account (for this very reason). Do the POP access show you all mails, including sent, spam, etc.? I suspect by default it only shows you the so-called inbox.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 19:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqMKB-5xq-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166966 |
On Friday 22 April 2016 14:20:18 Nicolas George wrote: > I suspect the misfeature belongs in gmail's web interface, > actually, and the mails are really present in the archive and accessible > through IMAP. Possibly. I avoid all I care about (I use threading) by using an email client, POP3 and my ISP's SMTP server. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Shapiro <marcnshap@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 08:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rsr90-4Oy-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166966 |
On 04/22/2016 06:20 AM, Nicolas George wrote: > Le quartidi 4 floréal, an CCXXIV, The Wanderer a écrit : >> If the list software did this modification for _all_ messages, not just >> ones from Gmail addresses, I don't see how it would break threading > It breaks it for the *senders*: they would have the message in their "sent" > archive with the message-id chosen by the MUA and the rest of the thread > connected to the message (in-reply-to and references) with a different > message-id. > >> Interesting. Do you have any evidence for the idea that it uses more >> than just Message-ID? I can't prove that it doesn't, but I've never seen >> anything that I recall to indicate that it does. > A long time ago, I experimented with in-reply-to and references in order to > see how gmail decided if a mail belongs in a thread, and my conclusion was > that it relied more on the subject field than anything else. It was a long > time ago. > >> For myself, one major reason (not the only one) is that the received >> copy is often different from the sent copy - modified message headers >> (e.g. by adding List-ID), added mailing-list footer, et cetera. > True. A gamil users could check to see if it is possible to obtain that > information. I suspect the misfeature belongs in gmail's web interface, > actually, and the mails are really present in the archive and accessible > through IMAP. I use a gmail account, but I hate the web interface, so I use Thunderbird with IMAP. I'm pretty sure that I get all of my posts back. I'll let you know for sure when this one comes back to me. Marc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Shapiro <marcnshap@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 08:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rsr90-4Oy-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167132 |
On 04/26/2016 11:24 PM, Marc Shapiro wrote: > On 04/22/2016 06:20 AM, Nicolas George wrote: >> Le quartidi 4 floréal, an CCXXIV, The Wanderer a écrit : >>> If the list software did this modification for _all_ messages, not just >>> ones from Gmail addresses, I don't see how it would break threading >> It breaks it for the *senders*: they would have the message in their >> "sent" >> archive with the message-id chosen by the MUA and the rest of the thread >> connected to the message (in-reply-to and references) with a different >> message-id. >> >>> Interesting. Do you have any evidence for the idea that it uses more >>> than just Message-ID? I can't prove that it doesn't, but I've never >>> seen >>> anything that I recall to indicate that it does. >> A long time ago, I experimented with in-reply-to and references in >> order to >> see how gmail decided if a mail belongs in a thread, and my >> conclusion was >> that it relied more on the subject field than anything else. It was a >> long >> time ago. >> >>> For myself, one major reason (not the only one) is that the received >>> copy is often different from the sent copy - modified message headers >>> (e.g. by adding List-ID), added mailing-list footer, et cetera. >> True. A gamil users could check to see if it is possible to obtain that >> information. I suspect the misfeature belongs in gmail's web interface, >> actually, and the mails are really present in the archive and accessible >> through IMAP. > > I use a gmail account, but I hate the web interface, so I use > Thunderbird with IMAP. I'm pretty sure that I get all of my posts > back. I'll let you know for sure when this one comes back to me. > > > Marc > Yes, it came right back. It shows as being 'Read', but it's there. Marc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Allen <marathon.durandal@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 01:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rsH46-1rb-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167133 |
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26:36PM -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote: <snip> > Yes, it came right back. It shows as being 'Read', but it's there. > > > Marc You're reading the 'All Mail' Gmail directory that's why. Copies don't come back to one's regular inbox, but will be in the all mail directory if my memory serves me. By default Gmail won't show them in the inbox in their Webmail Gmail or INBOX app. Using IMAP on mutt I don't see them either unless I enter the all mail directory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 03:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rsICT-2JI-31@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167163 |
On 04/27/2016 04:21 PM, Stephen Allen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26:36PM -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote: > > <snip> > >> Yes, it came right back. It shows as being 'Read', but it's there. >> >> >> Marc > You're reading the 'All Mail' Gmail directory that's why. Copies don't > come back to one's regular inbox, but will be in the all mail directory > if my memory serves me. By default Gmail won't show them in the inbox in > their Webmail Gmail or INBOX app. Using IMAP on mutt I don't see them > either unless I enter the all mail directory. > > I don't work with gmail. I was with verizon but was forced to change to aol when verizon got out of the mail business. In addition, I use good old icedove as my mail client and avoid all of the adds. But debian-list is the only mailing list with which I am having this problem. So is it debian-lists problem or aol's Gary R
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Allen <marathon.durandal@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 18:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rsX8S-6Ta-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167167 |
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 06:01:54PM -0700, Gary Roach wrote: > On 04/27/2016 04:21 PM, Stephen Allen wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26:36PM -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > Yes, it came right back. It shows as being 'Read', but it's there. > > > > > > > > > Marc > > You're reading the 'All Mail' Gmail directory that's why. Copies don't > > come back to one's regular inbox, but will be in the all mail directory > > if my memory serves me. By default Gmail won't show them in the inbox in > > their Webmail Gmail or INBOX app. Using IMAP on mutt I don't see them > > either unless I enter the all mail directory. > > > > > I don't work with gmail. I was with verizon but was forced to change to aol > when verizon got out of the mail business. In addition, I use good old > icedove as my mail client and avoid all of the adds. But debian-list is the > only mailing list with which I am having this problem. So is it debian-lists > problem or aol's The problem being?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 21:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rsZX4-15D-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167174 |
On 04/28/2016 09:36 AM, Stephen Allen wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 06:01:54PM -0700, Gary Roach wrote: >> On 04/27/2016 04:21 PM, Stephen Allen wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26:36PM -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> Yes, it came right back. It shows as being 'Read', but it's there. >>>> >>>> >>>> Marc >>> You're reading the 'All Mail' Gmail directory that's why. Copies don't >>> come back to one's regular inbox, but will be in the all mail directory >>> if my memory serves me. By default Gmail won't show them in the inbox in >>> their Webmail Gmail or INBOX app. Using IMAP on mutt I don't see them >>> either unless I enter the all mail directory. >>> >>> >> I don't work with gmail. I was with verizon but was forced to change to aol >> when verizon got out of the mail business. In addition, I use good old >> icedove as my mail client and avoid all of the adds. But debian-list is the >> only mailing list with which I am having this problem. So is it debian-lists >> problem or aol's > > The problem being? > That none of my posts are showing up on my iceweasel mail client. Very annoying. I've been using this combination for years and the problem just started recently. Maybe something to do with being forced to shift to aol. I've been thinking about shifting to gmail but hate to think of all of the email addresses that will need to be changed. Gary R
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Shapiro <marcnshap@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 03:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rt5zs-5VC-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167174 |
On 04/27/2016 04:21 PM, Stephen Allen wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26:36PM -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> Yes, it came right back. It shows as being 'Read', but it's there. >>>> >>>> >>>> Marc >>> You're reading the 'All Mail' Gmail directory that's why. Copies don't >>> come back to one's regular inbox, but will be in the all mail directory >>> if my memory serves me. By default Gmail won't show them in the inbox in >>> their Webmail Gmail or INBOX app. Using IMAP on mutt I don't see them >>> either unless I enter the all mail directory. >>> Actually, no. I let Gmail do my filtering and all of the list's mail gets filtered into a separate folder. My posts show up there. Marc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Allen <marathon.durandal@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 00:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rtpeO-5x6-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167188 |
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 06:33:33PM -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote: > On 04/27/2016 04:21 PM, Stephen Allen wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26:36PM -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote: > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > Yes, it came right back. It shows as being 'Read', but it's there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > You're reading the 'All Mail' Gmail directory that's why. Copies don't > > > > come back to one's regular inbox, but will be in the all mail directory > > > > if my memory serves me. By default Gmail won't show them in the inbox in > > > > their Webmail Gmail or INBOX app. Using IMAP on mutt I don't see them > > > > either unless I enter the all mail directory. > > > > > Actually, no. > > I let Gmail do my filtering and all of the list's mail gets filtered into a > separate folder. My posts show up there. You're telling me you put your sent mail in that folder too via a ruleset? Why do you want to see your sent email?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 02:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rtqud-6qS-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167226 |
On Friday 29 April 2016 18:33:07 Stephen Allen wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 06:33:33PM -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote: > > On 04/27/2016 04:21 PM, Stephen Allen wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26:36PM -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote: > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it came right back. It shows as being 'Read', but it's > > > > > > there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > You're reading the 'All Mail' Gmail directory that's why. > > > > > Copies don't come back to one's regular inbox, but will be in > > > > > the all mail directory if my memory serves me. By default > > > > > Gmail won't show them in the inbox in their Webmail Gmail or > > > > > INBOX app. Using IMAP on mutt I don't see them either unless I > > > > > enter the all mail directory. > > > > Actually, no. > > > > I let Gmail do my filtering and all of the list's mail gets filtered > > into a separate folder. My posts show up there. > > You're telling me you put your sent mail in that folder too via a > ruleset? Why do you want to see your sent email? I dunno what planet you are on, but I want to see my post coming back from the list server to prove that the post made it to the list. With gmail, the only practical way to do that is to subscribe using two different names, and always send to only one, but you will then get the list echo back on the 2nd account. Its a PITA with gmail, but its the only way I know of to get around their duplicate deletion. Then gmail changed the login about a year ago, so mine failed and I took that server off my every 3 minute scan for new mail. And I don't miss the headache of dealing with gmail as it reduces my pain killer input by 99%. Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web