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 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 18:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbTVw-7a6-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171552 |
On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 09:59:42 (-0400), Henning Follmann 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). 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. > The fact that a lot of mail ends up in places where they are never looked > at is a social issue not a technical one. The unreliability of email is also overreported by people whose homework, years earlier, was eaten by their dog. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 18:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbUeS-7ka-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171560 |
On Tuesday 30 August 2016 17:18:10 David Wright wrote: > The unreliability of email is also overreported by people > whose homework, years earlier, was eaten by their dog. Years ago I sent a Guaranteed Delivery Letter to our local Council. They claimed not to have received it. As it was very important, I followed it up. The area Postmaster, who was tired of being accused of not delivering things his staff had delivered, was very co-operative. With his help, I proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the letter was delivered, and delivered on time. The Council spokesperson said that I had proved that an envelope had been delivered to them, but I had not proved that there was anything in the envelope. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 23:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbYVb-1Te-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171561 |
On Tuesday 30 August 2016 12:33:57 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 17:18:10 David Wright wrote: > > The unreliability of email is also overreported by people > > whose homework, years earlier, was eaten by their dog. > > Years ago I sent a Guaranteed Delivery Letter to our local Council. > They claimed not to have received it. As it was very important, I > followed it up. The area Postmaster, who was tired of being accused of > not delivering things his staff had delivered, was very co-operative. > > With his help, I proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the letter > was delivered, and delivered on time. > > The Council spokesperson said that I had proved that an envelope had > been delivered to them, but I had not proved that there was anything > in the envelope. > > Lisi I admire your reserve, for not testing to see how much phosgene gas you could have gotten out of his Teflon suit by overheating it, with him in it of course. Can I assume he did not get your vote the next time he stood for that council chair... 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]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 19:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbVkD-7WI-37@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171560 |
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. > > The fact that a lot of mail ends up in places where they are never looked > > at is a social issue not a technical one. > > The unreliability of email is also overreported by people > whose homework, years earlier, was eaten by their dog. The canine community must feel relief that the canard has been placed elsewhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 20:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbW6Z-8w9-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171563 |
Just out of interest, why have you sent a personal copy of a reply to the Debian list about an email of David Wright's to me, which is an irrelevant flouting of the code of conduct rules??? ;-) It's not like you Brian to make Human Errors. ;-) Lisi I tried to send this to you personally, by both routes readily available to me, but your email set-up kept rejecting it. So here is my (mild) protest publicly. ;-) On Tuesday 30 August 2016 18:45:34 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. > > > > The fact that a lot of mail ends up in places where they are never > > > looked at is a social issue not a technical one. > > > > The unreliability of email is also overreported by people > > whose homework, years earlier, was eaten by their dog. > > The canine community must feel relief that the canard has been placed > elsewhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbWTn-Dd-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171571 |
On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 19:31:08 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > Just out of interest, why have you sent a personal copy of a reply to the > Debian list about an email of David Wright's to me, which is an irrelevant > flouting of the code of conduct rules??? ;-) It's not like you Brian to make > Human Errors. ;-) So I did. Apologies. I make errors all the time; I just fight a good rearguard action. :) But not this time; surrender is the honorable course of action. 2016-08-30 18:45:35 1ben6M-0008JJ-JK => lisi.reisz@gmail.com R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com [64.233.167.26] X=TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128 DN="C=US,ST=California,L=Mountain View,O=Google Inc,CN=mx.google.com" C="250 2.0.0 OK 1472579135 u10si39132321wje.183 - gsmtp" 2016-08-30 18:45:50 1ben6M-0008JJ-JK => debian-user@lists.debian.org R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=bendel.debian.org [82.195.75.100] X=TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128 DN="C=NA,ST=NA,L=Ankh Morpork,O=Debian SMTP,OU=Debian SMTP CA,CN=bendel.debian.org,EMAIL=hostmaster@bendel.debian.org" C="250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 147DD63" 2016-08-30 18:45:50 1ben6M-0008JJ-JK Completed I must have hit "r" or "g" in mutt. Damn these two bottles of wine. :) > Lisi > > I tried to send this to you personally, by both routes readily available to > me, but your email set-up kept rejecting it. So here is my (mild) protest > publicly. ;-) What were the two readily available routes open to you? Which addresses?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 23:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbYs9-1JI-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171574 |
On Tuesday 30 August 2016 20:26:45 Brian wrote: > > I tried to send this to you personally, by both routes readily available > > to me, but your email set-up kept rejecting it. So here is my (mild) > > protest publicly. ;-) > > What were the two readily available routes open to you? Which addresses? I didn't try terribly hard! I just used my usual: if one SMTP server is rejected (Zen), try the other one (Gmail), then gave up. Had it been important I would obviously have persevered a bit more. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 23:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbYLv-1Qd-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171585 |
On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 22:09:51 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 20:26:45 Brian wrote: > > > I tried to send this to you personally, by both routes readily available > > > to me, but your email set-up kept rejecting it. So here is my (mild) > > > protest publicly. ;-) > > > > What were the two readily available routes open to you? Which addresses? > > I didn't try terribly hard! I just used my usual: if one SMTP server is > rejected (Zen), try the other one (Gmail), then gave up. Had it been > important I would obviously have persevered a bit more. I meant: what email address did you use to try to contact me?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 01:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sc0X0-36N-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171587 |
On Tuesday 30 August 2016 22:24:04 Brian wrote: > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 22:09:51 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 20:26:45 Brian wrote: > > > > I tried to send this to you personally, by both routes readily > > > > available to me, but your email set-up kept rejecting it. So here is > > > > my (mild) protest publicly. ;-) > > > > > > What were the two readily available routes open to you? Which > > > addresses? > > > > I didn't try terribly hard! I just used my usual: if one SMTP server is > > rejected (Zen), try the other one (Gmail), then gave up. Had it been > > important I would obviously have persevered a bit more. > > I meant: what email address did you use to try to contact me? lisi.reisz@gmail.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 00:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbZHF-2pw-35@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171574 |
On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 20:26:45 (+0100), Brian wrote: > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 19:31:08 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > Just out of interest, why have you sent a personal copy of a reply to the > > Debian list about an email of David Wright's to me, which is an irrelevant > > flouting of the code of conduct rules??? ;-) It's not like you Brian to make > > Human Errors. ;-) > > So I did. Apologies. > > I make errors all the time; I just fight a good rearguard action. :) But > not this time; surrender is the honorable course of action. > > 2016-08-30 18:45:35 1ben6M-0008JJ-JK => lisi.reisz@gmail.com R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com [64.233.167.26] X=TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128 DN="C=US,ST=California,L=Mountain View,O=Google Inc,CN=mx.google.com" C="250 2.0.0 OK 1472579135 u10si39132321wje.183 - gsmtp" > 2016-08-30 18:45:50 1ben6M-0008JJ-JK => debian-user@lists.debian.org R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=bendel.debian.org [82.195.75.100] X=TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128 DN="C=NA,ST=NA,L=Ankh Morpork,O=Debian SMTP,OU=Debian SMTP CA,CN=bendel.debian.org,EMAIL=hostmaster@bendel.debian.org" C="250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 147DD63" > 2016-08-30 18:45:50 1ben6M-0008JJ-JK Completed > > I must have hit "r" or "g" in mutt. Damn these two bottles of wine. :) 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. Sorry if I caused confusion by appearing to send a personal email when it was public (if this is all about <20160830161810.GA8604@alum>). > > I tried to send this to you personally, by both routes readily available to > > me, but your email set-up kept rejecting it. So here is my (mild) protest > > publicly. ;-) > > What were the two readily available routes open to you? Which addresses? I, too, have failed to email you, Brian, on one occasion recently. I used just the email address that is normally in your From: header. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 01:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sc0Nj-33l-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171590 |
On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 17:22:34 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 20:26:45 (+0100), Brian wrote:
> > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 19:31:08 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> >
> > > Just out of interest, why have you sent a personal copy of a reply to the
> > > Debian list about an email of David Wright's to me, which is an irrelevant
> > > flouting of the code of conduct rules??? ;-) It's not like you Brian to make
> > > Human Errors. ;-)
> >
> > So I did. Apologies.
> >
> > I make errors all the time; I just fight a good rearguard action. :) But
> > not this time; surrender is the honorable course of action.
> >
> > 2016-08-30 18:45:35 1ben6M-0008JJ-JK => lisi.reisz@gmail.com R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com [64.233.167.26] X=TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128 DN="C=US,ST=California,L=Mountain View,O=Google Inc,CN=mx.google.com" C="250 2.0.0 OK 1472579135 u10si39132321wje.183 - gsmtp"
> > 2016-08-30 18:45:50 1ben6M-0008JJ-JK => debian-user@lists.debian.org R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=bendel.debian.org [82.195.75.100] X=TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128 DN="C=NA,ST=NA,L=Ankh Morpork,O=Debian SMTP,OU=Debian SMTP CA,CN=bendel.debian.org,EMAIL=hostmaster@bendel.debian.org" C="250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 147DD63"
> > 2016-08-30 18:45:50 1ben6M-0008JJ-JK Completed
> >
> > I must have hit "r" or "g" in mutt. Damn these two bottles of wine. :)
>
> 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. Sorry if I caused confusion by appearing
> to send a personal email when it was public (if this is all
> about <20160830161810.GA8604@alum>).
The cavalry arrives - but hours late :); I should have stuck to my
rearguard policy. But thanks for the intervention. It turns out I did
hit "L" and not "r" or "g".
Additionally, I have learned a little more about mutt's behaviour.
<list-reply> (default: L)
Reply to the current or tagged message(s) by extracting any addresses which
match the regular expressions given by the lists or subscribe commands, but
also honor any Mail-Followup-To header(s) if the $honor_followup_to
configuration variable is set. In addition, the List-Post header field is
examined for mailto: URLs specifying a mailing list address. Using this
when replying to messages posted to mailing lists helps avoid duplicate
copies being sent to the author of the message you are replying to.
Your mail had a Mail-Followup-To header to debian-user and Lisi Reisz. I
think it was this rather than the Cc that got me a telling off.
> > > I tried to send this to you personally, by both routes readily available to
> > > me, but your email set-up kept rejecting it. So here is my (mild) protest
> > > publicly. ;-)
> >
> > What were the two readily available routes open to you? Which addresses?
>
> I, too, have failed to email you, Brian, on one occasion recently.
> I used just the email address that is normally in your From: header.
The address is valid and one I am entitled to use. However, it looks
like my ISP has fouled something up and rendered it useless. I'll have
to have a think about what to do about this.
Meanwhile, if it is something urgent (like giving me money), my other
mail headers provide a working address.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 02:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sc16F-39J-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171591 |
On Wednesday 31 August 2016 00:34:47 Brian wrote: > > I, too, have failed to email you, Brian, on one occasion recently. > > I used just the email address that is normally in your From: header. > > The address is valid and one I am entitled to use. However, it looks > like my ISP has fouled something up and rendered it useless. I'll have > to have a think about what to do about this. Sorry, Brian. I continued to misunderstand your question. I just used "reply to sender", so it went (or failed to go) to the address on the top: Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 22:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scjZD-6XP-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171591 |
On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 00:34:47 (+0100), Brian wrote: > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 17:22:34 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 20:26:45 (+0100), Brian wrote: > > > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 19:31:08 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > > > > Just out of interest, why have you sent a personal copy of a reply to the > > > > Debian list about an email of David Wright's to me, which is an irrelevant > > > > flouting of the code of conduct rules??? ;-) It's not like you Brian to make > > > > Human Errors. ;-) > > > > > > So I did. Apologies. > > > > > > I make errors all the time; I just fight a good rearguard action. :) But > > > not this time; surrender is the honorable course of action. > > > > > > 2016-08-30 18:45:35 1ben6M-0008JJ-JK => lisi.reisz@gmail.com R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com [64.233.167.26] X=TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128 DN="C=US,ST=California,L=Mountain View,O=Google Inc,CN=mx.google.com" C="250 2.0.0 OK 1472579135 u10si39132321wje.183 - gsmtp" > > > 2016-08-30 18:45:50 1ben6M-0008JJ-JK => debian-user@lists.debian.org R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=bendel.debian.org [82.195.75.100] X=TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128 DN="C=NA,ST=NA,L=Ankh Morpork,O=Debian SMTP,OU=Debian SMTP CA,CN=bendel.debian.org,EMAIL=hostmaster@bendel.debian.org" C="250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 147DD63" > > > 2016-08-30 18:45:50 1ben6M-0008JJ-JK Completed > > > > > > I must have hit "r" or "g" in mutt. Damn these two bottles of wine. :) > > > > 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. Sorry if I caused confusion by appearing > > to send a personal email when it was public (if this is all > > about <20160830161810.GA8604@alum>). > > The cavalry arrives - but hours late :); I should have stuck to my > rearguard policy. But thanks for the intervention. It turns out I did > hit "L" and not "r" or "g". > > Additionally, I have learned a little more about mutt's behaviour. > > <list-reply> (default: L) > > Reply to the current or tagged message(s) by extracting any addresses which > match the regular expressions given by the lists or subscribe commands, but > also honor any Mail-Followup-To header(s) if the $honor_followup_to > configuration variable is set. In addition, the List-Post header field is > examined for mailto: URLs specifying a mailing list address. Using this > when replying to messages posted to mailing lists helps avoid duplicate > copies being sent to the author of the message you are replying to. > > Your mail had a Mail-Followup-To header to debian-user and Lisi Reisz. I > think it was this rather than the Cc that got me a telling off. You got there a lot faster than I did. Presumably you don't/didn't have any special treatment of followup_to and honor_followup_to in your .muttrc file. It would appear to me that it's only polite for someone to add their *own* address to any Mail-Followup-To header (apart from list addresses of course) so that they receive replies-to-replies (which a simple Reply-To header wouldn't achieve). Otherwise it acts a bit like an email-bomb, doesn't it? Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 12:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scx6x-nV-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171651 |
On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 15:04:26 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 00:34:47 (+0100), Brian wrote: > > > > Additionally, I have learned a little more about mutt's behaviour. > > > > <list-reply> (default: L) > > > > Reply to the current or tagged message(s) by extracting any addresses which > > match the regular expressions given by the lists or subscribe commands, but > > also honor any Mail-Followup-To header(s) if the $honor_followup_to > > configuration variable is set. In addition, the List-Post header field is > > examined for mailto: URLs specifying a mailing list address. Using this > > when replying to messages posted to mailing lists helps avoid duplicate > > copies being sent to the author of the message you are replying to. > > > > Your mail had a Mail-Followup-To header to debian-user and Lisi Reisz. I > > think it was this rather than the Cc that got me a telling off. > > You got there a lot faster than I did. Presumably you don't/didn't > have any special treatment of followup_to and honor_followup_to in > your .muttrc file. I decided many years ago that 'set followup_to=yes' didn't do anything for me. What I hadn't realised is that the combination of the default honor_followup_to and pressing 'L' could lead to a CC'ing-by-proxy chain of events.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 16:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scewV-3rZ-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171590 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
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. 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. Regards, -- Nicolas George
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 16:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sceZX-3Ew-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171615 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:11 PM Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote: > Le quartidi 14 fructidor, an CCXXIV, David Wright a écrit : > This clause of the code of conduct is unsustainable, and therefore should > be > ignored until the configuration is fixed and the corresponding clause > updated. > > 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. You're in compliance by doing something not everyone agrees with but which looks harmless to me. The result is that when I hit Reply-all to this thread, my mail client automatically replied only to the list. Well and good -- actually, very good, because it prevents me making the stupid mistake I frequently make of cc-ing the poster of the mail I am replying to. So no arguments with your chosen actions from me. But I don't particularly wish to hear you advocating for ignoring the code of conduct, or any part of it, any more, and I very much doubt I am alone. Mark
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 17:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scfMl-4aI-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171619 |
On Wednesday 31 August 2016 15:45:42 Mark Fletcher wrote: > Well and > good -- actually, very good, because it prevents me making the stupid > mistake I frequently make of cc-ing the poster of the mail I am replying > to. But it doesn't prevent Nicolas from deliberately cc-ing most of the rest of us when replying to our mails; which is exceedingly annoying and is NOT in compliance with the CoC. It is, of course, and annoyance one can easily avoid by blacklisting him. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 17:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scfMl-4aI-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171625 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Le quintidi 15 fructidor, an CCXXIV, Lisi Reisz a écrit : > But it doesn't prevent Nicolas from deliberately cc-ing most of the rest of us > when replying to our mails; which is exceedingly annoying and is NOT in > compliance with the CoC. I do not "deliberately" cc anyone most of the time, I just obey the messages headers. You can set up the messages headers to avoid receiving the extraneous copies from anyone, including me, with a simple configuration option that I have already explained, to you personally. Not following advice is of course your absolute right. > It is, of course, and annoyance one can easily avoid by blacklisting him. Indeed. Please feel free to blacklist anyone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 20:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sci7v-5IJ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171625 |
On Wednesday 31 August 2016 11:31:18 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Wednesday 31 August 2016 15:45:42 Mark Fletcher wrote: > > Well and > > good -- actually, very good, because it prevents me making the > > stupid mistake I frequently make of cc-ing the poster of the mail I > > am replying to. > > But it doesn't prevent Nicolas from deliberately cc-ing most of the > rest of us when replying to our mails; which is exceedingly annoying > and is NOT in compliance with the CoC. > > It is, of course, and annoyance one can easily avoid by blacklisting > him. > > Lisi I do not know if its CoC correct, but my copy of kmail, courtesy the Trinity people, shows that a "reply-to-list", goes only to the list, while a "reply-all" goes to the list, and CC's the poster, in this case Lisi. And a simple reply says only to the list. That seems odd as it should reply to Lisi. Something in the list headers apparently makes the list address a higher priority. So I use reply-all, then nuke the list address by hand, and change the Cc: line to a To: line if I want to PM Lisi. This works for me, and I am rarely chided about it. I would much druther the reply-all kept track of the posters involved in the thread and CC'd them if I click on the reply-all button, but that would be a memory eating monster of a headache for kmail. FWIW, I turn off kmails thread follower long ago, so I see them in their order of arrival here. Those who missed a reply with valuable info in it because they aren't subscribed, expecting to be Cc'd for that whole thread, should subscribe, problem solved. If our Mr. George were to use an email agent that did observe a similar protocol, that would stand a good chance of shutting down threads such as this one. Have a great day everyone. My coffee pot had the audacity to run dry, so I said a few magic incantations over it, and its now refilling itself. Then I'll go see whats wrong with a tapered thread cutting program I am in the middle of writing a universal version of in g-code (rs-274 std). Once that has been done, then I need to find a plastic pan big enough to hold this part covered in distilled water, and cut, using edm, three slots at 60 degree angles so the part will have 6 fingers that a similarly tapered nut I'll have to make, will screw onto, crushing those fingers into a no slip grip on the end of a ball screw, even with half a ton or more of push or pull is exerted on the screw. Fun & games when I win, and it keeps me out of the bars to boot! I should probably get a life, I have so far, outlived this one. :) 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]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 22:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scGMx-6xb-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171641 |
On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 14:08:36 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Wednesday 31 August 2016 11:31:18 Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > On Wednesday 31 August 2016 15:45:42 Mark Fletcher wrote: > > > Well and > > > good -- actually, very good, because it prevents me making the > > > stupid mistake I frequently make of cc-ing the poster of the mail I > > > am replying to. > > > > But it doesn't prevent Nicolas from deliberately cc-ing most of the > > rest of us when replying to our mails; which is exceedingly annoying > > and is NOT in compliance with the CoC. > > > > It is, of course, and annoyance one can easily avoid by blacklisting > > him. > > > > Lisi > > I do not know if its CoC correct, but my copy of kmail, courtesy the > Trinity people, shows that a "reply-to-list", goes only to the list, > while a "reply-all" goes to the list, and CC's the poster, in this case > Lisi. That's very odd. A reply to some entity should go To: them. Cc: is a carbon copy for someone who is not being replied to. > And a simple reply says only to the list. That seems odd as it should > reply to Lisi. Something in the list headers apparently makes the list > address a higher priority. So I use reply-all, then nuke the list > address by hand, and change the Cc: line to a To: line if I want to PM > Lisi. You ought not to have to promote an address in that way when you reply-ALL. > This works for me, and I am rarely chided about it. I would much druther > the reply-all kept track of the posters involved in the thread and CC'd > them if I click on the reply-all button, but that would be a memory > eating monster of a headache for kmail. FWIW, I turn off kmails thread > follower long ago, so I see them in their order of arrival here. > > Those who missed a reply with valuable info in it because they aren't > subscribed, expecting to be Cc'd for that whole thread, should > subscribe, problem solved. > > If our Mr. George were to use an email agent that did observe a similar > protocol, that would stand a good chance of shutting down threads such > as this one. But that would be breaking a perfectly good MUA. The problem boils down to somebody adding addresses to Mail-Followup-To, which has a worse effect that just CCing people when replying to d-u, something that people already moan about. I already defend myself against the latter with Reply-To: set to the list. Now it appears I have to defend myself against committing the former by dropping Mail-Followup-To. Unfortunately mutt cannot divine whether an address in a received Mail-Followup-To was put there by the unsubscribed owner, or gratuitously by someone else. It either passes them all along, or drops them all, AFAICT. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web