Subject: FVWM: Please, no private mail to me (Dominik Vogt)

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:41:22 +0100

Hi folks,

in the last few days I received an increasing number of
mails addressed to me and only me. *Please* everyone
don't reply to threads on the list to me directly. I am
*NOT* 'the maintainer' of fvwm2 but merely one of them
and the others are interested in the information too.
Furthermore if you send me mails directly I don't get
them at home where I do the work. And since my allowed
mail volume there is very limited, please don't reply
to my private address. All I will do with such mail is
forwarding it to the list (= more work for me).
If you are unsure if you should post large patches, ask
on the list. In general for everything up to 50k you can
post to the list without thinking twice about it.

Jason, Dan, does anything on the web page suggest that
folks should send mail to me? If not, could we mention
that explicitly (at least for a while)?

Thanks

Dominik
-- 
Dominik Vogt, Hewlett-Packard GmbH, Dept. BVS
Herrenberger Str.130, 71034 Boeblingen, Germany
phone: 07031/14-4596, fax: 07031/14-3883, [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://fvwm.math.uh.edu/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Pete Forman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:00:30 GMT

You need to set a "Reply-To:" field if you want replies to go to the
list rather than yourself.  This is documented in RFC 822 section
4.4.3.  I see that you have a "Mail-Followup-To:" but this is non-
standard.

Perhaps the majordomo could be configured to add a reply-to if none
has been set by the original poster.
-- 
Pete Forman
Western Geophysical
[email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://fvwm.math.uh.edu/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 16 Dec 1998 10:02:03 -0500

%% Pete Forman <[email-masked]> writes:

  pf> You need to set a "Reply-To:" field if you want replies to go to
  pf> the list rather than yourself.  This is documented in RFC 822
  pf> section 4.4.3.  I see that you have a "Mail-Followup-To:" but this
  pf> is non- standard.

No, you need to use the "followup" command in your mailer to send to all
recipients, instead of the "reply" command to send only to the author.
"Followup" will send to fvwm-workers, since it's on the CC line.

Certainly if Dominik never wanted to receive private replies he could
set his reply-to, but people sending patches, etc. should reply to the
list regardless.

  pf> Perhaps the majordomo could be configured to add a reply-to if none
  pf> has been set by the original poster.

No.  Or rather, majordomo can be configured that way, of course, but  it
is The Wrong Thing To Do.

  http://garcon.unicom.com/FAQ/reply-to-harmful.html

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Development
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://fvwm.math.uh.edu/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Pete Forman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 16:10:57 GMT

%% Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]> writes:
%% Pete Forman <[email-masked]> writes:

  pf> You need to set a "Reply-To:" field if you want replies to go to
  pf> the list rather than yourself.  This is documented in RFC 822
  pf> section 4.4.3.  I see that you have a "Mail-Followup-To:" but
  pf> this is non-standard.

  ps> No, you need to use the "followup" command in your mailer to
  ps> send to all recipients, instead of the "reply" command to send
  ps> only to the author.  "Followup" will send to fvwm-workers, since
  ps> it's on the CC line.

Followup sends two copies to the originator, one directly and one via
the list.  Most of my list activity is in USENET, so I'm used to
sending followup to the newsgroup only.  The originator should get a
direct copy only if they explicitly request it.

I suppose that the solution is for the mailer to recognize mailing
lists and remove the author from the followup recipients, unless
followup & reply has been explicitly called for.

  ps> Certainly if Dominik never wanted to receive private replies he
  ps> could set his reply-to, but people sending patches, etc. should
  ps> reply to the list regardless.

  pf> Perhaps the majordomo could be configured to add a reply-to if
  pf> none has been set by the original poster.

  ps> No.  Or rather, majordomo can be configured that way, of course,
  ps> but it is The Wrong Thing To Do.

  ps>   http://garcon.unicom.com/FAQ/reply-to-harmful.html

Point taken.

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 16 Dec 1998 11:38:10 -0500

pf> Followup sends two copies to the originator, one directly and one
  pf> via the list.  Most of my list activity is in USENET, so I'm used
  pf> to sending followup to the newsgroup only.  The originator should
  pf> get a direct copy only if they explicitly request it.

Right, but this isn't USENET :)

I agree it would be nice to have the ability to follow up only to the
non-From addresses... I wonder if Gnus has that?  I'll have to look!

I typically just remove any addresses from the header that I don't want,
by hand.  It just takes a second in Emacs.

  pf> I suppose that the solution is for the mailer to recognize mailing
  pf> lists and remove the author from the followup recipients, unless
  pf> followup & reply has been explicitly called for.

Well, it would be nice if _majordomo_ was smart enough to canonicalize
the To and CC fields, including mailing list expansion, so everyone got
just one copy.  That would be the Right Thing, I think.