On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Louis-David Mitterrand <vindex(_at_)apartia(_dot_)ch>
wrote:
This totally defeats the purpose of the reply-to: header (which is to
indicate a preferred reply address) because after having removed it,
I NEVER said I removed the original Reply-To: address. What I do is mung
the header so that the reply to for all lists is set to the list; if the
originator didn't intend for my reply to be seen by the list then it's not
list mail---it's private mail and should be sent accordingly.
you
effectively lost the information; when replying privately to that user
you will be reduced to using his From: address which may very well be
wrong and even embarrassing if that user explicitly used a reply-to to
_not_ receive replies to his work address listed in From:, for example.
I NEVER said I removed it. What I do is force the correct address for the
list with formail -i, so for those rare occasions where I do need to reply
to someone's preferred address it is there.
Removing e-mail headers is wrong, wrong, wrong. You should never do it.
I NEVER said I removed it. Let me say that again I NEVER said I removed
it. You imagine I've said something because it suits your proclivities
rather than the facts.
It's mind-boggling that you even try to begin to justify it. That this
debate is taking place on a list devoted to proper e-mail management is
even more surprising.
Surely if this is "a list devoted to ``proper'' email management" then it
IS the correct place to be discussing the issue. However, I understood
this list merely to be where one could ask questions concerning the use of
procmail (and presumably formail).
It's an ugly hack, it's a kludge, and you don't have to do it.
Until such times as all email lists have reached the same consensus and
standardise the way that Reply-To is use there will always be a need to do
it.
A better solution would be to use a decent MUA that supports a
reply-to-list function (hint: http://www.mutt.org). Pine is obsolete and
non-free software.
!
Doctrinalism in everything being "open source" doesn't help. That pine
isn't doctrinally "OpenSource" may be true. It's "free" in that one does
not have to pay. But as pine has recently been updated (version 4.33) it
ain't obsolete. Indeed I know improvements are still being made because I
discussed enhancements with the development people today. Others providing
patches to pine (see .sig) would also not agree with you.
OK, my words may have been too strong, but mutt is truly a superior MUA.
In your opinion.
The problem with pine being non-free is not philosophical, it's just
that its development model can't even begin to compare to mutt's.
That's a non sequitur. Either the development model is "open source" as a
philosophy or it isn't. So what if mutt is and pine isn't. That one is
open source does not of necessity make that team better. The CMM from SEI
is one way to compare software engineering teams. Whether the mutt or pine
teams have risen above chaotic or reached optimising isn't the issue.
How a development team is managed does not affect functionality.
Mutt
has so much functionality and configurability that after five years of
use I still haven't explored all of it (while still being perfectly
usable out of the box). These guys just keep adding more!
But I don't want more. More functions is the Microsoft philosphy: load it
with so many functions that in your own words "after five years ...
haven't explored all of it". Such an attitude militates against the spirit
of UNIX as Thompson et al put it in their original CACM paper. More
(unused) functionality leads to bloatware. Schumacher's dictum still hold
"small is beautiful".
When I list-replied to your messages I simply hit the 'L' key and only
the procmail list was included as recipient, I didn't have to edit the
recipient list to prune cc:'s.
With a Reply-to: munged by procmail for all procmail list message all I
did was press the R key.
Yes, but I still can reply to that person directly without risking a
faux-pas and without pruning cc's.
So. My emailer is better than yours. :-;
As a "linux advocate" you shoudn't be butchering e-mail headers to get
the functionality you need.
If you work in a heterogeneous environment then munging via procmail is
the only way to get consistent and reproducible results. And as the
majority of list owners are not UNIX/Linux/Solaris gurus such munging will
always be needed to give the functionality wanted.
Mutt is supported on all unices, is friendly to elm and pine users, is
available on windows (in the standard cygwin distribution:
http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin/)
I never refered to which MUA would be used. In the environment that I work
in the fact that mutt or pine are available on all UNIX variants is
irrelevant. (It's a given that it will, belch, be Microsoft Outlook.) Also
it's irelevant as to which platforms mutt or pine or even Outlook run on
because the issue is about the way mailing lists are run not how one
composes a particular email contribution to any one of those lists.
Hetergenuity extends far beyond mere issues of platform to how lists are
run including lists run by what Microsoft calls "power users".
Much as you might like to think otherwise the email world is larger than
mutt and larger than UNIX in all its variants.
<>< Re: deemed!
Meaning you will go to heaven and I won't?
Yes to the former and I've no idea as to the second. But there we
won't need email.
Regards, Trevor
British Sign Language is not inarticulate handwaving; it's a living language.
Support the campaign for formal recognition by the British government now!
--
Local list tags removed with a patched pine courtesy of Eduardo Chappa
<>< Re: deemed!
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail