OFFTOPIC Re: [Mailman-Users] Archive URL in postings (2.1b3)

[John Buttery]

* Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui at plaidworks.com> [2002-10-29 10:45:28 -0800]:
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 10:38  AM, Jay Sekora wrote:
> >Because it's simply a lie.  I got this mail with the headers:
> 
> sorry. don't agree.
 
  "Lie" is kinda an interesting way to put it, but I think we all know
what he means.  How can you say that readdressing a mail (which is what
you're doing here) isn't a "lie" the way he's referring to it?  It's in
plain black and white.

> >What that means to me is that Chuq Von Rospach knows me, knows my email
> >address, deliberately decided to send this mail to me specifically,
> 
> um, interesting philosophy. I don't buy it. Not for a moment.

  Well, OK then, how would you differentiate this new behaviour from a
hypothetical message I might have sent pre-upgrade that _did_ have your
address in the To: and the list in the CC:?  Hint: you can't.  (Of
course, I acknowledge that sending a copy directly to a person who is
already subscribed to the list is a bit silly/redundant, but I don't see
that that dilutes the point at all.  In five seconds I can think of a
case where this would happen...I see a mail off the list, I don't know
someone is subscribed, so I send them my followup but also CC the list
because I think it pertains there also.  With this new function, you've
just erased anybody's ability to tell the difference between those two
situations.)
  Saying you "don't buy" something that someone has stated is their
opinion/feeling is indefensible.  :)
 
> >Back to filtering, I filter lots of my mailing lists into separate
> >folders, but I only do so if my own address doesn't appear in the
> >destination headers, because in that case I consider the message 
> >addressed
> >to me as an individual as well as to the list, and I want it to end
> >up in the place where mail-addressed-to-me-as-an-individual goes.
> >
> >With this change that distinction is lost.  I can no longer tell
> 
> I think that filtering method is flawed, personally. I filter all list 
> mail into a folder, using list-id, sender, mailing-list (damn you, 
> yahoogroups), and occasionally a weird header from some funky list 
> server that doesn't come near the standards except in leap years.
> 
> that way, I know what's in my personal mailbox is personal mail. Even 
> if it's a reply I got from a posting to a mail list. That allows me to 
> carry on a discussion on a list in a timely manner, even if (for 
> instance) I don't read the mail in the list folder for a while. Like, 
> well, this discussion...

  When two mails are sent out, I'll get one filtered into my folder for
the list, and the other one sent to my main inbox; that's the way the
sender intended it, and that's the way I want it.  That doesn't happen
anymore, because there's actually only one email, since you've included
a fake header.  You're saying a (copy of an) email has been sent
directly to me when it hasn't.

> >For lists I'm subscribed to but filter to folders and read in batch
> >mode, I'll just change my filters to adapt.  That loses me the 
> >adavantage
> >of treating messages that actually *did* list me individually as a
> >recipient differently,
> 
> not really. you STILL have List-ID. If it exists, you know it came 
> through the server. If it doesn't, it's a direct copy. you haven't lost 
> the ability to figure this out at all (and, in fact, it worked that way 
> before. Your system, FWIW, fails if, say, I send email to the list and 
> BCC you. Mine handles that appropriately...)

  True...but should be unecessary.  Besides, filtering into folders is
only one application of header matching, as others have pointed out.
Colorization of lines (based on whether your exact address is in the
headers somewhere) in a message index is another, and List-ID won't help
you on that one. :)
  But really, this is all getting away from the original philosophical
point that an address that a message was not sent to should not be faked
into the headers.

> >Sorry if this message comes across as heated.
> 
> not at all. Now's the right time to put this on the table and hash it 
> out. Better now than AFTER it ships...

  Break out the asbestos suits!  :p

  And again, like someone else said, it's not really that bad as long as
it's configurable (and even better if it's not the default).  BUT, I
do/will consider it a step backwards for any lists I'm on to implement.
Is there any chance of making a special setting so that all of the
personalization options _except_ this one can be applied to an account?
I'm going out on a limb here, but I think I may not be the only one who
would like to see that.  :)

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 John Buttery
                                     (Web page temporarily unavailable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/attachments/20021029/181dd6c7/attachment.pgp