This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: UNC Pathname Handling within Applications


* Larry Hall wrote (2004-07-16 21:19):
>At 02:13 PM 7/16/2004, you wrote:
>>I sent the sollowing message to Larry via private mail:
>Sorry.  Everything I post to the list I want to be on the list.

I expected that to be a misconfiguration of some kind, now you say you
do that on purpose. It's your choice to prefer discussions on the
list, but I it's highly annoying to send people off to some
non-existing address that you not even own.

>If you would like to continue this or some other discussion off-list,
>reply to the list and let me know that's the direction you want to go.

What other loops have I got to jump through trying to communicate with
you? If you force this discussion on the list by avoiding to open
other means of communication, that's what you get.

>(and continuing it much beyond this is likely getting OT so that
>would make sense)>

Which is exactly the reason I wanted to take this off-list. Your
Reply-To antics is what prevented it.

>>I think the Reply-To header is quite unfit for that.
>>For once, it it mungled often enough that I had to check with every
>>list whether I could use it or not.
>OK, it is not munged by this list.

Yeah, but I don't want to check every time somebody insists to send me
every mail twice.

>>Instead I use the Mail-Followup-To header as described here:
>So you do.  I guess my email client doesn't honor that.

Your email client *sets* Mail-Followup-To, so it must be pretty crappy
to ignore it on inbound mail.

>>>Depending on the software you use, you may find that you can easily
>>>filter out duplicates too.
>>That wouldn't be entirely satisfactory either for two reasons:
>>- The list mail would usually arrive second and be destroyed. That
>>leaves not-list messages in my list folder.
>>- I might be lead to think that it *is* a personal reply (like this
>>one) and answer personally where a list answer might be more
>People do this with their email clients directly or through the help
>of procmail.

People do *what* with Procmail? I've never seen an MDA recipe that
deletes the *first* mail of an identical set. It's rather hard to do,
too, since the MDA would have to remember where that first mail went.

>>>I don't second-guess the implied intent of posters to whom I respond
>>>by editing the recipient list but my email client automatically
>>>honors when "reply-to" is set.  Most do.  I'd recommend setting it
>>>when you correspond with this list or any that you subscribe to.
>>Actually, I wonder what possible reasons could exist to send every
>>mail twice, and even by default. I haven't checked, but I guess you
>>cannot subscribe this list or any other write-only, so in what
>>possible situation would the second mail enhance communication?
>You guessed wrong.

Please tell me how I activate the write-only subscription.

>That's exactly why I use reply-to-all.  You don't have to be
>subscribed to the list to post to it.

Ok, so find a way to identify these so that you don't have to send
each mail out twice by default. If these people do not care enough to
subscribe, why should you care to accomodate them?

>(well I would have called my suggestions but what's semantics between
>friends ;-) )

Yeah, let's discuss our knowledge of the english language. Is there
any lower point you could have made?

Guns don't protect freedom, people protect freedom.

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]