RE: (now OT) cygwin processes and system'ed processes using 100% CPU

["Hughes, Bill" <Bill dot Hughes at cox dot co dot uk>]

> Sent: 28 January 2004 13:18 From: Dave Korn 
> > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Brian Dessent
> 
> > *sigh*  No, that's how mailing lists are supposed to work.  
> > Lists where the ML software forces the Reply-To to the list 
> > address are broken.  See 
> > <http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html>
> 
>   Without having much opinion myself on how things should be 
> done for the
> cygwin list, I'll just observe that that article is not a 
> balanced review
> but a one-sided polemic based on a false dichotomy.
> 
>   The author of it presents and contrasts these two options, "Reply to
> everyone" and "Reply to just the author", and demonstrates 
> how reply-to and
> reply-to-munging interacts with those.
> 
>   In doing so, he completely ignores the *third* option, 
> "Reply to just the
> list" - in fact, such an option is not mentioned once anywhere in the
> article.
How is your email client to pick which of several adresses to send to?
Are you assuming that all mailing lists add a valid List-Post header?

>   Yet in real life, people are *always* saying "Don't Cc me, 
> just reply to
> the list"; the author of that article skates entirely over 
> the issue that
> his "Reply to all" option spams the original poster with pointless
> duplicates if the original poster is a list subscriber.
I had this problem here, I had to 'Reply to All' and then delete your email
address to send only to the list

>   He also only addresses the one case of munging, where a 
> Reply-to header is
> blindly added to mails, overwriting any Reply-To that might already be
> there.  He doesn't consider the option of only adding one to 
> mails that
> don't already have one.
I thought that Reply-To was only used to over-ride the From field, i.e. the
Reply-To address defaults ot From if not explicitly set.

>   IMO, most of his objections become automatically invalid 
> given the simple
> proviso that the list only sets the Reply-To header if one hasn't been
> supplied by the original poster. 
IF that's what the list does it still doesn't address the points about the
inadvertent sending of private emails to a list.

> Having two different 
> methods as the cygwin
> list now does, one of which munges and one of which doesn't, 
> seems to me to
> give the ultimate combination of flexibility and respect for 
> the original poster's wishes. 
It makes life easier for people who have simple (arguably broken) email
clients and can't cope with deleting non-list addresses upon Reply To All,
or who keep making mistakes, or who want their hands held. 
Just to clarify I get it wrong too, I'm trying harder not to. I'm learning.

> Let me address just his summary:
> 
> 1>It violates the principle of minimal munging. 
> 
>   Not if it's only under control of the original poster.  As 
> he himself
> agrees, sometimes munging is reasonable.
It's not so good if you reply to a poster who has chosen to mung the reply
to on a sensitive issues and the message goes to a list. We've already had a
discussion about how changing the subject etc doesn't break threading so
it's easy to see a case of "Oh Joe wanted to know about treatment for his
embarassing condition, there's a post to the list I'll just reply to that
..."
Just becasue people want to do something doesn't mean someone else has to
help them.
> 
> 2>It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer. 
> 
>   Simply untrue; as pointed out above, "Reply to just the list" is as
> difficult the way he suggests doing things as "Reply to just 
> the author" is
> when doing things the way he doesn't like.  So which of those 
> two do people
> want to do more often?  I'd bet quite a lot that wanting to 
> reply to just
> the list is what people want to do more often than replying 
> privately to
> just the author by a factor of hundreds-to-one or more.
See above, reply to all, delete non-list address, simple.

> 
> 3>It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she 
> will direct a
> response. 
> 
>   Again, I'll agree that munging shouldn't be automatic, and shouldn't
> overwrite any *existing* Reply-to header.
But unless I'm mistaken (which I may well be) by not explicitly setting a
reply-to header the sender has chosen for the reply to go to the address in
the From header, so you would be going against the posters wishes.

> 4>It actually reduces functionality for the user of a 
> reasonable mailer. 
> 
>   This is the same as 2> above, and untrue for the same reason.
see my reply above :-)


> 5>It removes important information, which can make it 
> impossible to get back
> to the message sender. 
> 
>   This problem is also solved by my response to 3> above.
See my response above, it maybe less clear cut here but still..

> 6>It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order 
> to coddle those
> running brain-dead software. 
> 
>   This is just another repitition of 2 and 4, combined with a 
> bit of elitist
> snobbery for added flameworthiness.
We disagree on 2 and 4 and your ad hom doesn't make his point untrue -
anyway I'm running brain dead software at work becasue I have no choice. I
don't want coddling.
 
> 7>It violates the principle of least work because complicates 
> the procedure
> for replying to messages. 
> 
>   As pointed out above, he completely ignores the "Reply to List only"
> option and the fact that it is by far the more common choice 
> than "Reply to
> author only" or "Reply to author AND list".
If the List-Post is not set there is no way to know which address is the
mailing list.
 
> 8>It violates the principle of least surprise because it 
> changes the way a
> mailer works. 
> 
>   First he complains about brain-dead mailers.  Now he's 
> complaining about
> mailers that correctly respond to RFC822-standard headers.  
> That's just
> silly.  It doesn't change the way a mailer works, which is 
> and always has
> been to reply to the Reply-To header if present, else the 
> From: header.
But you've changed the way the system works by messing with the list server.
I'll have to check the rfcs about mailing list protocols sometime.

> 
> 9>It violates the principle of least damage, and it 
> encourages a failure
> mode that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse. 
> 
>   I think this is the real point of the entire article.  The guy has
> publicly embarassed himself at some point and his humiliation 
> has driven him
> to write this emotionally-driven massive over-reaction.
Or reasoned argument.

> 
> 10>Your subscribers don't want you to do it. Or, at least the 
> ones who have
> bothered to read the docs for their mailer don't want you to do it. 
> 
>   How does he know what subscribers to random lists want or 
> don't want?
> Different lists have their own different cultures, traditions 
> and standards.
> He attempts to make his statement true by only counting the 
> opinions of
> those who agree with him and dismissing everyone else as lazy 
> people who
> can't be bothered  to read mailer docs.  This is a well-known fallacy.
> 
>   I think there's plenty of good material in that article, but it's
> overwhelmed by the guy's personal emotional bias.  I don't 
> think that the
> article deserves to be treated as one of the standard pieces 
> on netiquette
> and pointed at as some kind of authority.  And I think the 
> cygwin list by
> providing the posters with every kind of option gets it most 
> right of all.
Or is it as sign of cgf admitting defeat and bowing to the pressure :-)



This e-mail transmission is strictly confidential and intended solely
for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance
on it. If you have received this email in error, please reply to the
sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please note that we
are able to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail communications
passing through our network.

The views expressed in this email are not that of the company unless
specified within the message.

The inclusion of this footnote indicates that the mail message and any
attachments have been checked for the presence of known viruses.

If you have any comments regarding our policy please direct them to
postmaster@cox.co.uk
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System. For more information on a proactive email security
service working around the clock, around the globe, visit
http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/