On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Cameron Simpson <cs@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06Jul2010 09:47, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > | But the actual steps you have to do are different depending on the > | list manager; majordomo is different than mailman. > > So? It is not _very_ different. It is. Try it. > | > It serves two > | > purposes: it catches misspelt email addresses (because the confirmation > | > email fails) and it rejects most spam robots (because they don't process > | > the confirmation email, and generally don't provide anything but lies in > | > email address fields anyway). > | > > | > If there were no spammers and no misconfigured user mail clients and no > | > misfilled forms then this step would not be necessary. But it is because > | > is so greatly reduces trouble. > | > | Yes, but again; other mailing lists manage just fine without requiring > | subscription. > > Good for them. Glad we both agree your argument was invalid. > | If the list remains subscription-only, there's still spam > | that goes through, the spam filter will help. And if the lists is > | moderated, the spam filter would help go through the moderation queue. > | > | The burden would not be on the subscribers, in fact they would receive > | less spam. > > Ok, but the burden on the moderators goes up. Putentially WAY up. How much the burden goes up is unknown. Anyway, I have offered myself to give a try moderating to fill that unknown. > | > | > Subscriptions is a step in minimising crap being posted to the list > | > | > (whether that be spam, or simply tossers who'll post rubbish to lists, > | > | > just to spout crap from their fingers). > | > | > | > | Really? So I don't subscribe I'm a looser whose posts are not welcome? > | > > | > Well, if you don't subscribe you're too lazy to meet the very low bar to > | > entry to the discussion; maybe you're not desirable. This isn't so in > | > your case, since you're clearing prepared to argue cogently for your > | > point of view. But for the many many spammers it _is_ the case that they > | > are not welcome. > | > | Again, that's speculation. > > No, it's not. It is empirical fact. All the "maybes" are speculation on > an individual post basis, but in the aggregate the distribution is real. You don't have *any* data, nor hard, nor empirical, about the people that decide not to subscribe. > | Most of the mailing lists I'm subscribed > | to, allow non-subscribers to post, and there are as many occasional > | posters who don't have a clue there, than here. So again, I don't > | think it's sensible to apply prejudices based on the people's > | subscription, which is very simple to do. > > Nobody is telling you how to run _your_ lists. I am open to suggestions to improve communication. > | > | And if some random guy manages to subscribe (which according to a > | > | previous post it's easy), then it's post is worthwhile? > | > > | > It means they've made an effort: they are probably not a spammer and > | > probably not a robot and _are_ probably more motivated to participate in > | > a valuable way. So yes, _probably_ they are more worthwhile. > | > | The correlation between membership and worthwhileness is very week at > | best. Again, the person can subscribe, troll, and leave. > > Of course. But the correlation is not that weak. At least only people > prepared to make a (small) effort get to post. Spammers make ZERO > effort. Spammers would not get to post; they would be moderated and discarded. And again, the correlation is week. Say Albert Einstein wanted to post to fedora-users, I guess you would qualify his post as worthwhile, and he would consider his time very valuable, so he would only spend his time on tasks that are worthwhile. He would be ok spending time writing an email, but not spending time subscribing a mailing list because that task doesn't achieve anything. Specially considering he said that things should be as simple as possible. > | > Not on all lists. Moderators often lack the time. I speak as one such, > | > and some posts simply don't make it because they have waited too long > | > for attention. It is not scalable. If the list is very active, the > | > problem gets far worse. > | > | Again, other lists manage just fine. Speculation. > > Sigh. Not speculation. I have seen lists made useless by spammers, and > abandoned, and lists where the burden becomes too much for the > moderators. It does happen. If somebody doesn't have time to moderate the mail queue, then the spam just stacks in the moderation queue, but it doesn't get to the list. So your argument wasn't even valid. And again, you don't have *any* evidence as to how much mail would have to be moderated. I would gladly take the role of moderator to figure that out. > | > | >> Orthogonal to this is that the mailing lists should not mingle with > | > | >> "Reply-To"; they should leave the To and Cc fields intact, so that the > | > | >> MUA can reply to the right addresses. See: > | > | >> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > | > | > > | > | > The list works fine. Messages go to the list, and the list's address is > | > | > in the "to" field, where it belongs. > | > | > | > | The initial mail might have the ml is "To", but might also be in "Cc". > | > > | > Shrug. For mail clients that distinct is usually irrelevant. > | > | No. Imagine you have a discussion with a group of people, most of them > | are not subscribed to the ml. Then you think; hey, why not Cc the > | fedora-user mailing list and see what they think? > > You think: "why not _spam_ the fedora list with some discussion whose > ancestors posts have been seen by nobody". No. You write a nice summary of the thread. That's what people do in case you haven't been on a open mailing list. > | Well, the Reply-To > | munging will override the Cc and make all the replies go to the ml > | *only*. > > Your mail client is weak. Sorry, I thought I read that was what the Reply-To field was supposed to do but apparently I'm wrong. Would have to check. Then people can avoid "please keep me in cc"; they can just Cc themselves. > | Sure, MUAs don't make much of a difference between To and Cc (people > | do), but Reply-To makes a huge difference. > > Can do, for the plain "reply" setting. That is not your only choice. Depends on the client. AFAIK if Reply-To is present, then *most* clients present only one option. Let's remember that what is relevant here is what most clients do. > | > | But the later posts wouldn't if the rules were right. I would be > | > | sending this mail to you, as you were the originator, and the mailing > | > | list would be kept in Cc. > | > > | > Plenty of people don't want a personal CC; they want all replies on the > | > list only. > | > | Really? Why? Are you speculating again? Where's the evidence? > > Gah. I haven't been speculating anywhere. _All_ the stuff I've said is > based on things I have personally seen. > > Including plenty of people who explicitly ask not to be personally CCed, > yea, even to the point of putting such a request at the top of _every_ > post they make. *Some* nut-jobs might not like to be Cc'ed. You still have not explained *why* they wouldn't want that, and you still haven't provided any evidence that there are *plenty* of cases. > | I have never seen a single person complain about it. > > My experience is broader than yours then. Speculation. > | > | This has another advantage. Many clients, like Gmail, do smart thing > | > | where the user is in the To field (or Cc for that matter), > | > > | > It might help if you said what you think _is_ the smart thing. Since > | > the current setup of this list _is_ what is often wanted, some > | > justification is needed _after_ you describe "the smart thing". > | > | Gmail shows personal level indicators: > | http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=8156 > | > | Also, you are just assuming that whatever setup this mailing list has > | is what is often wanted. Another possibility is that people really > | didn't think too much about it. > > Sure, that was a possibiity. But based on the reponses in this thread, > it is demonstrably false. It is _not_ wanted. The people on this thread didn't make the decision. > | > | but on > | > | Fedora lists, that information is lost thanks to the Reply-To munging. > | > > | > Bah. Nothing need to use it. > | > | Maybe not you, but other people want to know when the mail was sent to > | the mailing list, or both to the mailing list and them. > | > | > | In my MUA, notmuch, for example, I have a rule; if the message was > | > | sent to the the certain mailing list, skip the inbox tag, unless it > | > | was sent to me. No way to do that here. > | > > | > Demonstrably false. I file my email in _exactly_ the same way, and it > | > works just fine. > | > | Impossible. You can't filter mail that was addressed to you and the > | mailing list. If the Reply-To header is munged, the mail will appear > | to be addressed to the ml only. > > Funny, my filters work. I'm beginning to think you live in a fantasy > world. I give up with you; you are not listening at all. You can filter mail from:fedora-users, and you can filter from:fedora-users and from:john, but you cannot filter mail from fedora-users *AND* to:me. It's impossible because the header has "to:users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx". Impossible. Period. > | > Also, I _always_ press group-reply/reply-to-all and never plain reply, > | > and then I consider the resulting to/cc headers and edit if suitable. > | > That bypasses your reply-to issue altogether. > | > | Sure, for *outgoing* mail I can override the Reply-To filed. But when > | people hit reply, the reply will go to Reply-To (the ml only), and > | then I would not be able to tell if the mail was addressed to me or > | not. > > Sure you can. It wasn't addressed to you. Easy. In fact, that's what > you're complaining about I think. > > But you could in principle track message ancestry through the In-Reply-To > header. You expect MUAs to read In-Reply-To, go through the whole mailbox, find it, read the author field, and then say: oh, it was addressed to this guy, let's highlight it. No, they don't have anything remotely closed. Neither is there anything would use that to allow to:me filters (it would be way too inefficient). > | > | > Because that's where the post was > | > | > sent to. > | > | > | > | Only because of Relpy-To munging; it's a vicious circle. > | > > | > And yet often desirable. > | > > | > Plenty of people are incapable of keep the discussion on list (with > | > or without cc-to-author). Yea, even my mother in personal email often > | > drops the CC to my partner. The reply-to makes that work for this list. > | > | Speculation. Other mailing lists manage just fine. > > Again, NOT speculation. I have seen this in the real world; I'm even > citing specific examples for you. You seem to just ignore stuff that > doesn't fit your world view. Whatever you "see in the real world" is personal experience, you are making a conclusion "Plenty of people are incapable of keep the discussion on list" based on it. If you don't have evidence, you are speculating. Valid evidence would be something like: we tried this for one month on April 2009 and you can see these mails complaining about the results. You don't have anything close to that. > | If your mother drops the Cc, that's your mother's fault. But on public > | open source mailing lists, people know the difference between reply > | and reply to all, or they will learn, just like they learn netiquette. > > Many never learn. And if they can learn that, they can learn to cope in > the face of lists that munge the repy-to. No. a) Reply-To munging disabled b) Reply-To munging enabled With a) there's no functionality loss compared to b), but b) makes certain things impossible that are possible with a). > | > So it may well largely work, but it is unreliable. > | > | If it was a problem, somebody would have complained, don't you think? > > Sure they complain, and when they set up lists of their own they minge > the reply-to to avoid the issue in future. You don't seem to be concentrated. This is what you are supposed to be replying: | > | Most of the mailing lists I'm subscribed to don't munge the Reply-To | > | header, and all the threads are kept in the ml (in fact multiple | > | mailing lists as cross-posting works). | > | > You can't tell how much escapes, because you do not see the escapes. We were supposed to be talking about the mailing list *I* am subscribed which work fine, and nobody complained there. You are going into whatever direction helps your case. > | > Demonstrably false. My MUA has those choices. And I use the second one and > | > edit where it turns out to be not desirable (infrequent). > | > | What are you talking about? I said that the MUA would present two > | choices, and you are saying that you have the two choices... So what I > | said is true. > > Go and reread what you said above. You didn't say that. > If you meant to say it, we may agree. You didn't specify in which case you were presented two options. I don't care any more. > | > | > I can't recall whether it changes the CCs, and I half agree with keeping > | > | > them. Unfortunately some troublemakers abuse that, by replying to some > | > | > post, and adding inappropriate addresses to a CC field. > | > | > | > | Reply-To overrides the Cc too. > | > > | > _If_ you use the mailer's "conventional reply" operation. And even then, > | > the outcome is more right than not. > | > | When Reply-To is munged, you don't have the "reply to all" option, > | only "reply". And I said, the Cc is overridden. > > Only if your MUA is weak. You can reply to all the people in the to/cc > any time you like. Irrelevant. What is relevant is how most clients behave, as that's how the mailing list will behave in general. Anyway, your replies are too long and unfocused. I don't think I'll have the patience to reply another one of this kind. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
