Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #171052 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-13 05:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-09-08 16:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-08-13 05:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-08-13 06:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-08-15 14:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> - 2016-08-16 18:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-08-16 22:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 04:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-08-17 05:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 13:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-08-15 16:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 08:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 20:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> - 2016-08-25 20:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 11:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-08-30 15:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 16:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-08-30 16:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 16:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 20:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-08-30 17:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-08-30 17:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 18:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 18:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-08-30 23:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 19:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 20:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 21:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 23:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 23:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 01:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 00:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 01:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 02:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 22:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 12:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-08-31 16:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 16:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 17:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-08-31 17:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-08-31 20:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 22:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-08-31 18:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 18:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 18:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-08-31 18:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 20:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-08-31 20:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 23:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 21:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 20:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 21:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-08-30 18:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 20:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-08-30 21:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 23:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-08-30 21:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 21:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-08-30 22:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-08-30 22:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-08-30 17:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 18:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 20:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 20:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 20:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 21:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 22:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 22:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 20:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 08:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-08-31 09:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 11:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 14:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 10:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 21:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 11:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-02 15:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-09-02 18:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 15:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-08-31 15:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 20:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-09-01 18:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 20:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-09-01 21:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-08-31 16:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 10:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 16:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 20:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 22:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Ralph Katz <ralph.katz@rcn.com> - 2016-08-17 16:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-08-17 16:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Ralph Katz <ralph.katz@rcn.com> - 2016-08-17 18:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-08-17 19:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2016-08-17 20:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 21:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 21:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-01 17:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> - 2016-09-01 22:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 07:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-03 15:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-09-02 11:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-03 15:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-07 15:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Paul Johnson <baloo@ursamundi.org> - 2016-09-07 15:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-07 17:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-07 19:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Byung-Hee HWANG <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-08 01:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 01:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Michael Lange <klappnase@freenet.de> - 2016-09-08 02:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Byung-Hee HWANG <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-08 05:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-09-08 06:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-09-08 13:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-09-08 13:50 +0200
GNU (was Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?) "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-09-08 15:20 +0200
Re: GNU (was Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?) Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 15:40 +0200
Re: GNU "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-09-08 16:20 +0200
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 18:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scgfn-4zJ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171619 |
On 2016-08-31, Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > By participating in this list you implicitly agree to abide by the code of > conduct; authority is not granted to you to decide which parts of it you > will abide by and which not. > How about postings in HTML as a case in point of egregious violation? -- "I always say to people, ‘No one earns $100 million. You steal $100 million.’ People earn $10 an hour. People earn $40,000 a year. ‘Earn’ means work. Okay? It doesn’t mean steal, which with these vast amounts of money, of course you steal them." — Fran Lebowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 18:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scgp4-4D4-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171630 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wednesday 31 August 2016 17:01:36 Curt wrote: > On 2016-08-31, Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> wrote: > > By participating in this list you implicitly agree to abide by the code > > of conduct; authority is not granted to you to decide which parts of it > > you will abide by and which not. > > How about postings in HTML as a case in point of egregious violation? Purely factually, it was in multipart-alternative. I hadn't even noticed that my nice plain text display was attched to the possibility of displaying HTML. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 18:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scgIr-4Kp-55@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171633 |
On Wednesday 31 August 2016 17:12:43 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Wednesday 31 August 2016 17:01:36 Curt wrote: > > On 2016-08-31, Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> wrote: > > > By participating in this list you implicitly agree to abide by the code > > > of conduct; authority is not granted to you to decide which parts of it > > > you will abide by and which not. > > > > How about postings in HTML as a case in point of egregious violation? > > Purely factually, it was in multipart-alternative. I hadn't even noticed > that my nice plain text display was attched to the possibility of > displaying HTML. > > Lisi And I did try to check - unsuccessfully, sorry :-( :-( - that my email client hadn't followed suit. It is the one serious weakness of KMail-Trinity that it sometimes copies HTML, when it has not displayed it in a way that meant that one knew that it was there. I hope that I have succeeded in getting rid of it this time. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 18:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scgS6-4O7-41@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171633 |
On 2016-08-31, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> How about postings in HTML as a case in point of egregious violation? > > Purely factually, it was in multipart-alternative. I hadn't even noticed that my nice plain text display was attched to the possibility of displaying HTML. > And purely factually he posted in HTML as well as text, the former being a violation, as is your own post in which you did not wrap your lines. -- "I always say to people, ‘No one earns $100 million. You steal $100 million.’ People earn $10 an hour. People earn $40,000 a year. ‘Earn’ means work. Okay? It doesn’t mean steal, which with these vast amounts of money, of course you steal them." — Fran Lebowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scihc-5N2-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171638 |
On Wednesday 31 August 2016 17:45:07 Curt wrote: > as is your own post in which you did not wrap your lines. Does everyone else agree with this? They are displaying wrapped for me, and the setting requires them to wrap and is still set to column 78. (I have just checked.) If they are not wrapping for the rest of you, then this is a bug which needs pursuing. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 20:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sciKe-5ZB-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171642 |
On 2016-08-31, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 31 August 2016 17:45:07 Curt wrote: >> as is your own post in which you did not wrap your lines. > > Does everyone else agree with this? They are displaying wrapped for me, and > the setting requires them to wrap and is still set to column 78. (I have > just checked.) If they are not wrapping for the rest of you, then this is a > bug which needs pursuing. > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/08/msg01039.html -- "I always say to people, ‘No one earns $100 million. You steal $100 million.’ People earn $10 an hour. People earn $40,000 a year. ‘Earn’ means work. Okay? It doesn’t mean steal, which with these vast amounts of money, of course you steal them." — Fran Lebowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 23:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sckVI-7wC-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171645 |
On Wednesday 31 August 2016 19:40:18 Curt wrote: > On 2016-08-31, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday 31 August 2016 17:45:07 Curt wrote: > >> as is your own post in which you did not wrap your lines. > > > > Does everyone else agree with this? They are displaying wrapped for me, > > and the setting requires them to wrap and is still set to column 78. (I > > have just checked.) If they are not wrapping for the rest of you, then > > this is a bug which needs pursuing. > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/08/msg01039.html But: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/201608311634.41415.lisi.reisz@gmail.com and even: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/201608311916.07090.lisi.reisz@gmail.com There was obviously something wrong with that particular one. Thunderstorm?? Pixies?? Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scjmV-6sS-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171615 |
On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 16:10:37 (+0200), Nicolas George wrote:
> Le quartidi 14 fructidor, an CCXXIV, David Wright a écrit :
> > The error might have been mine. I think I CC'd Lisi in error.
> > The other list I'm on expects people to group-reply.
> > I forgot myself.
After some experiments, I think I have to withdraw that explanation.
Group-reply would have put
To: Lisi ..., debian-user@lists.debian.org
whereas my posting had
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Cc: Lisi ...
which is what list-reply writes¹.
In fact, the problem was that the posting I replied to had
Mail-Followup-To: Lisi ..., debian-user@lists.debian.org
in the header, which mutt dutifully obeyed *and* copied into my reply.
I might have spotted that Lisi was CC'd, but the copying of
Mail-Followup-To into my posting happens behind the scenes,
like handling References.
I suppose I could set a blank Mail-Followup-To in my composition
editor to prevent its auto-generation. (I don't do anything
sophisticated like posting to multiple lists.) But that might defeat
people who use Mail-Followup-To as a way of receiving replies without
being subscribed to the list, so maybe that's not a good idea.
> Systematic group-reply is the correct way of using mailing-lists, because it
> is the only way that does not require the user to waste time for each mail
> deciding the proper key to hit.
>
> This clause of the code of conduct is unsustainable, and therefore should be
> ignored until the configuration is fixed and the corresponding clause
> updated.
>
> In the meantime, let the whiners whine; the non-whiners can unilaterally fix
> things for themselves by setting the reply-to header, just like you or me.
Yes, I can't understand why more people don't set it.
In the dim and distant past, I put
:0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock
| formail -D 199999 $HOME/msgid.cache
into my .procmailrc file which got rid of any duplicates.
¹ only when replying to that particular posting of course.
Cheers,
David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 20:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scFdL-5tq-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171649 |
On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 14:23:01 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 16:10:37 (+0200), Nicolas George wrote: > > Le quartidi 14 fructidor, an CCXXIV, David Wright a écrit : > > > The error might have been mine. I think I CC'd Lisi in error. > > > The other list I'm on expects people to group-reply. > > > I forgot myself. > > After some experiments, I think I have to withdraw that explanation. > Group-reply would have put > To: Lisi ..., debian-user@lists.debian.org > whereas my posting had > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Cc: Lisi ... > which is what list-reply writes¹. > > In fact, the problem was that the posting I replied to had > Mail-Followup-To: Lisi ..., debian-user@lists.debian.org > in the header, which mutt dutifully obeyed *and* copied into my reply. You were also a victim, like me. The source of the infection remains at large and is still active. > I might have spotted that Lisi was CC'd, but the copying of > Mail-Followup-To into my posting happens behind the scenes, > like handling References. Does "ask-no" help? Or going the whole hog with "no"? > I suppose I could set a blank Mail-Followup-To in my composition > editor to prevent its auto-generation. (I don't do anything > sophisticated like posting to multiple lists.) But that might defeat > people who use Mail-Followup-To as a way of receiving replies without > being subscribed to the list, so maybe that's not a good idea. Of the approximately 14,000 mails in my -user archive about 1000 have a MFT header. Out of that 1000 the vast majority designate -user@l.d.o as the only place where the mail should go to. About 10 have a user's address only; 0.1%. Decision time. > > Systematic group-reply is the correct way of using mailing-lists, because it > > is the only way that does not require the user to waste time for each mail > > deciding the proper key to hit. > > > > This clause of the code of conduct is unsustainable, and therefore should be > > ignored until the configuration is fixed and the corresponding clause > > updated. > > > > In the meantime, let the whiners whine; the non-whiners can unilaterally fix > > things for themselves by setting the reply-to header, just like you or me. > > Yes, I can't understand why more people don't set it. Try harder :). -- Brian. Not a whiner but happy with "L", "r" and "g" in Mutt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 21:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scjwB-6xQ-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171563 |
On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 18:45:34 (+0100), Brian wrote: > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 11:18:10 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 09:59:42 (-0400), Henning Follmann wrote: > > > > > > However, why email is still reliable, because a proper setup provides you > > > with a well defined error messages (in case it is not delivered). > > > > There are occasions when this is several days later, unfortunately. > > Some of the retry intervals seem to have been set in the days when > > people/institutions dialled up the internet on a daily schedule. > > I think you have moved from unreliability (whatever that means) to > timeliness of delivery. If you put your mail under the control of > a third party you presumably accept their conditions. Anyway, what, > without drowning the internet in frequent retries, would be suitable > as a sequence of retry intervals? Exim on Debian uses > > # This single retry rule applies to all domains and all errors. It specifies > # retries every 15 minutes for 2 hours, then increasing retry intervals, > # starting at 1 hour and increasing each time by a factor of 1.5, up to 16 > # hours, then retries every 6 hours until 4 days have passed since the first > # failed delivery. Much of that is reasonable, but I think (without any evidence) that most people would prefer to receive a message of abandonment after 16 hours (perhaps only six) rather that sit on their hands for four days. For comparison, look at the time people here wait for a posting to appear before submitting a second try, and a third... Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 18:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbUox-7nH-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171552 |
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:42 -0400 Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an > > > unreliable messaging system" > > > > Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using > > it?? :-( > > > > Lisi > > > > However, why email is still reliable, because a proper setup provides > you with a well defined error messages (in case it is not delivered). > If an email is designated as spam, it will be *silently* dropped. It took mail admins a long time to realise that if a message was spam, the last thing they should do with it is to 'return' it to the apparent 'sender' as part of a bounce message. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 20:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbVui-80h-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171562 |
On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 17:49:34 +0100, Joe wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:42 -0400 > Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an > > > > unreliable messaging system" > > > > > > Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using > > > it?? :-( > > > > > > Lisi > > > > > > > However, why email is still reliable, because a proper setup provides > > you with a well defined error messages (in case it is not delivered). > > > > If an email is designated as spam, it will be *silently* dropped. It > took mail admins a long time to realise that if a message was spam, the > last thing they should do with it is to 'return' it to the apparent > 'sender' as part of a bounce message. It is taking users a much, much longer time to realise that mail admins are making decisions to drop mail which is intended for them (very often without being involved in the choice). Now, if the postal service did this....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 21:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbXcJ-L7-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171564 |
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:53:35 +0100 Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 17:49:34 +0100, Joe wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:42 -0400 > > Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > > "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an > > > > > unreliable messaging system" > > > > > > > > Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up > > > > using it?? :-( > > > > > > > > Lisi > > > > > > > > > > However, why email is still reliable, because a proper setup > > > provides you with a well defined error messages (in case it is > > > not delivered). > > > > If an email is designated as spam, it will be *silently* dropped. It > > took mail admins a long time to realise that if a message was spam, > > the last thing they should do with it is to 'return' it to the > > apparent 'sender' as part of a bounce message. > > It is taking users a much, much longer time to realise that mail > admins are making decisions to drop mail which is intended for them > (very often without being involved in the choice). Now, if the postal > service did this.... > Are you advocating 'returning' spam emails to innocent third parties? Silently dropping would seem to be the lesser of current evils. But emails are not expected to be reliable today. Even apart from false spam positives, a broken server can eat email, or delay it during periods of heavy load. Someone sending urgent data by email will confirm its arrival using a telephone. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 23:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbZ4R-1Wv-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171575 |
On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 20:42:42 +0100, Joe wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:53:35 +0100 > Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 17:49:34 +0100, Joe wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:42 -0400 > > > Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > > > "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an > > > > > > unreliable messaging system" > > > > > > > > > > Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up > > > > > using it?? :-( > > > > > > > > > > Lisi > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, why email is still reliable, because a proper setup > > > > provides you with a well defined error messages (in case it is > > > > not delivered). > > > > > > If an email is designated as spam, it will be *silently* dropped. It > > > took mail admins a long time to realise that if a message was spam, > > > the last thing they should do with it is to 'return' it to the > > > apparent 'sender' as part of a bounce message. > > > > It is taking users a much, much longer time to realise that mail > > admins are making decisions to drop mail which is intended for them > > (very often without being involved in the choice). Now, if the postal > > service did this.... > > > > Are you advocating 'returning' spam emails to innocent third parties? > Silently dropping would seem to be the lesser of current evils. Not at all. I was shifting the focus of the discussion. If users are willing to accept that ISPs have the right to drop mails on some arbitrary whim it is no wonder email can be seen as unreliable. > But emails are not expected to be reliable today. Even apart from false > spam positives, a broken server can eat email, or delay it during > periods of heavy load. Someone sending urgent data by email will confirm > its arrival using a telephone. 100% of the mails I have sent arrived at their destination. That is what I would call reliable. Any delays in the recipient getting the mail (or the mail being or dropped) are the responsibility of someone else. The postal system works in the same way. Nothing is perfect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 21:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbWA2-tT-39@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171562 |
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:49:34PM +0100, Joe wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:42 -0400 > Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an > > > > unreliable messaging system" > > > > > > Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using > > > it?? :-( > > > > > > Lisi > > > > > > > However, why email is still reliable, because a proper setup provides > > you with a well defined error messages (in case it is not delivered). > > > > If an email is designated as spam, it will be *silently* dropped. It > took mail admins a long time to realise that if a message was spam, the > last thing they should do with it is to 'return' it to the apparent > 'sender' as part of a bounce message. > You have a much too simplistic view of todays anti-spam measures. If an smtp server tries to deliver a messages, usually the first the receiving server does, during the helo, checking if the sending server is blacklisted. If blacklisted any attempt to deliver any mail will be denied and the sender will receive a proper 5XX error message. If the initial test passes though and the mail is accepted the mail has been "reliably" delivered. If any additional filter decide that this is spam then -again- we are dealing with an technical solution to a social problem. Still e-mail is fairly reliable. The issue as always is the overcommunication inflation which pretty much created the current situation. Finetuning the system to avoid fals positives while minimizing spam is an art. My current biggest pet peeve is that people are so distracted that they don't even read an email longer than 2 sentences (or 160 characters for our twitter friends) -H -- Henning Follmann | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 21:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbXcJ-L7-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171573 |
On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 15:05:02 -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:49:34PM +0100, Joe wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:42 -0400 > > Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > > "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an > > > > > unreliable messaging system" > > > > > > > > Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using > > > > it?? :-( > > > > > > > > Lisi > > > > > > > > > > However, why email is still reliable, because a proper setup provides > > > you with a well defined error messages (in case it is not delivered). > > > > > > > If an email is designated as spam, it will be *silently* dropped. It > > took mail admins a long time to realise that if a message was spam, the > > last thing they should do with it is to 'return' it to the apparent > > 'sender' as part of a bounce message. > > > > You have a much too simplistic view of todays anti-spam measures. > > If an smtp server tries to deliver a messages, usually the first the > receiving server does, during the helo, checking if the sending server is > blacklisted. If blacklisted any attempt to deliver any mail will be denied > and the sender will receive a proper 5XX error message. brian@desktop:~$ telnet itcfollmann.com 25 Trying 96.242.112.3... Connected to itcfollmann.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 newton.itcfollmann.com ESMTP Postfix (Debian/GNU) helo spammershaven.com 250 newton.itcfollmann.com mail from:yourneighbourhoodspammer@gmail.com 250 2.1.0 Ok rcpt to:hfollmann@itcfollmann.com 450 4.2.0 <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com>: Recipient address rejected: Greylisted, see http://postgrey.schweikert.ch/help/itcfollmann.com.html I don't really want to go to the data command or go through this greylisting business but the helo command seems acceptable to your server.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 22:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbXPr-1hr-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171576 |
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:42:05 +0100 Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 15:05:02 -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:49:34PM +0100, Joe wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:42 -0400 > > > Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > > > "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an > > > > > > unreliable messaging system" > > > > > > > > > > Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up > > > > > using it?? :-( > > > > > > > > > > Lisi > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, why email is still reliable, because a proper setup > > > > provides you with a well defined error messages (in case it is > > > > not delivered). > > > > > > If an email is designated as spam, it will be *silently* dropped. > > > It took mail admins a long time to realise that if a message was > > > spam, the last thing they should do with it is to 'return' it to > > > the apparent 'sender' as part of a bounce message. > > > > > > > You have a much too simplistic view of todays anti-spam measures. > > > > If an smtp server tries to deliver a messages, usually the first the > > receiving server does, during the helo, checking if the sending > > server is blacklisted. If blacklisted any attempt to deliver any > > mail will be denied and the sender will receive a proper 5XX error > > message. > > brian@desktop:~$ telnet itcfollmann.com 25 > Trying 96.242.112.3... > Connected to itcfollmann.com. > Escape character is '^]'. > 220 newton.itcfollmann.com ESMTP Postfix (Debian/GNU) > helo spammershaven.com > 250 newton.itcfollmann.com > mail from:yourneighbourhoodspammer@gmail.com > 250 2.1.0 Ok > rcpt to:hfollmann@itcfollmann.com > 450 4.2.0 <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com>: Recipient address rejected: > Greylisted, see > http://postgrey.schweikert.ch/help/itcfollmann.com.html > > I don't really want to go to the data command or go through this > greylisting business but the helo command seems acceptable to your > server. > It's a while since I did the telnet thing in anger, but I used to use a well-known (in the UK) six-character helo to save typing. No server ever pointed out to me that my mail-from had no connection with it. Many servers will reject a non-existent helo hostname. As you probably know, but others might not, it is recommended to reject the mail at the Recipient stage even when the problem is something else entirely. It's not likely to have been the helo here, as the result of failure would probably not have been a greylisting. Some systems are configured to greylist any previously-unknown sender, no matter how squeaky-clean they are otherwise. I don't know if that is true here, as I might gently point out the the URL given does not work. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 22:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbXw5-16F-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171573 |
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:05:02 -0400 Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> wrote: > > > > You have a much too simplistic view of todays anti-spam measures. > > If an smtp server tries to deliver a messages, usually the first the > receiving server does, during the helo, checking if the sending > server is blacklisted. If blacklisted any attempt to deliver any mail > will be denied and the sender will receive a proper 5XX error message. Yes, certainly, though a check of the sending IP DNS and a complete list of valid recipients stop a lot more spam than my blacklists do. Even requiring a thirty-second timeout stops a lot, no legitimate mail server minds waiting that long. > > If the initial test passes though and the mail is accepted the mail > has been "reliably" delivered. If any additional filter decide that > this is spam then -again- we are dealing with an technical solution > to a social problem. The social problem of the existence of thieves and idiot marketing people. I suspect a social solution to this social problem will not come in my lifetime. > Still e-mail is fairly reliable. > The issue as always is the overcommunication inflation which pretty > much created the current situation. Finetuning the system to avoid > fals positives while minimizing spam is an art. Indeed, which is why I pretty well gave up on content analysis. My usual email client dumps a few really egregious subjects, but otherwise I rely on a well-trained mail server. The email address above is genuine, and has been used on Usenet and various web-published forums for more than eighteen years, and still only about half a dozen spams a day make it to my mailbox. But things are improving, I only reject about a hundred a day, and ten years ago it averaged more than a thousand a day. My record was more than twelve thousand... -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 17:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbTst-6JN-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171551 |
Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: >> "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an >> unreliable messaging system" > > Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using it?? :-( > > Lisi Email (according to the RFCs) wasn't ever intended to be /reliable/ in the first place. It just happens to work that way most of the time. -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O|
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 18:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbTC9-6Nf-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171556 |
On Tuesday 30 August 2016 16:34:25 Dan Purgert wrote: > Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an > >> unreliable messaging system" > > > > Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using it?? > > :-( > > > > Lisi > > Email (according to the RFCs) wasn't ever intended to be /reliable/ in > the first place. It just happens to work that way most of the time. :-) It is more reliable and quicker than snail-mail. But it isn't reliable!! And is getting less so. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web