Archive URL in postings (2.1b3)
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/674ccfdc1240e36fdbfa8f95eeb2d7d6.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hi
I have a set-up where the domain name is different to the mailing address name.
Mailman seems to have set-up the mail addresses and the list admin URLs ok, but it gets the Archive URL wrong. It is using the email hostname,. not the domain name that it uses for the list admin etc.
I have tried editrting mm_cfg.py, the PUBLIC_ARCHIVE_URL var, but my postings still come out with the "old" URL. How do I change it for existing lists?
Cheers
Brian
Brian J Read www.abandonmicrosoft.co.uk www.theonlineorganiser.com www.thepersonalknowledgebase.com Mitel SMEserver Contributions and Howtos: www.abandonmicrosoft.co.uk/abandon/links.html +44 1695 723723
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/69fa6906cce076357c354b1521566c61.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hello,
why is everybody adding my email address into the cc field? Please stop it.
Michael
--
Michael Radziej SuSE Linux AG phone +49-911-74053-646 Internal IT Deutschherrenstr. 15-19 fax +49-911-3206727 (vormals interne EDV) 90429 Nürnberg, Germany web http://www.suse.de
Ich geb's zu, es ist manchmal alptraumartig.
cg am 24.10.2002 über perl
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/69fa6906cce076357c354b1521566c61.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Oops ...
sorry for my stupid rant :-)
It seems that the new mailman now creates individual "To:" headers. I'm not sure if I like this since I cannot tell whether the recipient wanted to send the mail really to me and only cc the list (so he might expect a personal answer from myself), or if it's just a regular list mail. But this is definitely not the fault of Brian or somebody else ...
Cheerio,
Michael
--
Michael Radziej SuSE Linux AG phone +49-911-74053-646 Internal IT Deutschherrenstr. 15-19 fax +49-911-3206727 (vormals interne EDV) 90429 Nürnberg, Germany web http://www.suse.de
Ich geb's zu, es ist manchmal alptraumartig.
cg am 24.10.2002 über perl
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/36ab6849e1c1ca4d3316e07b129a3362.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 12:54, Michael Radziej wrote:
Its either that personalisation has been switched on - which I think is in general bad for a general purpose list, or a (n unecessary) side effect of VERP handling, although if thats the case then the VERP limiting has been set so all messages are VERPed.
I guess it will change after the US folks get going again... unless Barry is wanting to knock all the bugs out of personalisation by stressing it a little.
Nigel.
-- [ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@InTechnology.co.uk ] [ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 05:13 AM, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
Its either that personalisation has been switched on - which I think is in general bad for a general purpose list,
It is. This is a new feature of 2.1, folks. And I disagree strongly with Nigel that it's a bad idea. I've been running my lists with personalization on for about 10 days now (they got all the pain fixing things...), and it's a nice plus. It'll be nicer once Barry adds some of the personalization into the footer. Once this is turned on, you can do some neat things like pre-load the URL for the listinfo page so it takes a user to their info directly, not a generic page where they have to figure out what to do.
It's a feature, not a bug.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cc550c77f5d962b88e761a6690ef727c.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 10:13, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
But it is a "bug" to enable this behavior on existing lists without alerting people clearly. Obviously it's screwing up many people's filters. List administrators take note -- don't do this on your own lists when you upgrade!
--Jeremy
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 07:20 AM, Jeremy Portzer wrote:
alerting people clearly. Obviously it's screwing up many people's filters.
then your filters were set up wrong. You sohuld have been filtering on List-ID all along, since that's what it's there for. Filtering on to/from is incorrect, so saying we shouldn't break it is also incorrect.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cc550c77f5d962b88e761a6690ef727c.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 11:40, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
Personally, *my* filters were correct; I'm having no problems.
It's just a general good idea that when you change things, you should let your users know of the changes. I agree that filtering on To/From is not idea, but many people do not know better. Many people are used to other list software that has nothing like List-ID, so they're forced to filtering on To/From.
One of the rules of effective system administration is to not piss off your users. I was just trying to remind people of this! You can be a BOFH in private, but that attitude doesn't work in real life.
--Jeremy (fortunately, this thread is already marked OFFTOPIC!)
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 08:52 AM, Jeremy Portzer wrote:
It's just a general good idea that when you change things, you should let your users know of the changes.
I don't disagree. I thought Barry did send out a warning that the list was going to 2.1.
One of the rules of effective system administration is to not piss off your users.
On the other hand, people have to remember this list is about mailman, so testing mailman on it is a necessary evil, and things are going to happen that, ahem, aren't always what's planned. The joy of beta code is even if you do get all the warnings, stuff's going to change in ways that you may not be ready for (because it might be broken...)
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
The Cliff's Notes Cliff's Notes on Hamlet: And they all died happily ever after
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/01aa7d6d4db83982a2f6dd363d0ee0f3.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
"CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com> writes:
CVR> On the other hand, people have to remember this list is about
CVR> mailman, so testing mailman on it is a necessary evil, and
CVR> things are going to happen that, ahem, aren't always what's
CVR> planned. The joy of beta code is even if you do get all the
CVR> warnings, stuff's going to change in ways that you may not be
CVR> ready for (because it might be broken...)
I'll just add that Chuq's been exceedingly patient with the change to MM2.1 on this list. He's not mentioning the mailbombing the list owners got this morning because the bounce processor had a little bug in it.
(Hey Chuq, I /think/ I just nailed this one. ;)
fixed-in-cvs-ly y'rs, -Barry
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/9f12620ec7f94107455e08e25b9e7aa9.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:49:53 -0500 barry@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) wrote:
It sounds like we need to be careful moving from 2.1b3 to 2.1b4 then.
-- Raquel
Men show their characters in nothing more clearly than in what they think laughable. --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/36ab6849e1c1ca4d3316e07b129a3362.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 16:40, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
Agreed.
However I find the addition of my delivery address into the To line highly irritating (even more so if I use list specific delivery addresses). I'd far rather only see the list address, and any pre-existing additional addresses, in the header To/Cc lines. Seeing my own address in a message header raises a mental flag that this message was sent to me personally, and sincere as you are no doubt being Chuq, I don't think you would consider the last batch of messages from you all personally addressed to me :-)
If you want to put the real delivery address in the message put it in the footer - some mail systems (hello sendmail) happily bugger around with the header lines anyway so its not even a (completely) safe marker of which account is subscribed to the list.
Nigel.
-- [ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@InTechnology.co.uk ] [ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 08:55 AM, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
However I find the addition of my delivery address into the To line highly irritating
Why? I'm curious.
What you're seeing is the move of mailman away from a bulk delivery model.
Why? Because, among other things, it's the first step towards a fully-customized setup. 2.1 allows you to customize various aspects of your subscription in ways that couldn't be done before. Also, more and more mail systems throw a tainted eye at all bulk mail (and for that matter, anything that is sent using BCC), and I think it's important that we understand that and differentiate mailing lists from those bulk deliveries.
Well, it was. Mailman carefully packaged up the message I posted, and then customized it to the preferences of each subscriber of the list. yours was set up JUST for you, in fact. As the personallization aspects are added to the message templates, you'll see that more obviously. And if you choose to customize your subscription, you'll start taking more advantage of it...
actually, we could argue the philosophy of that at some point...
Actually, sendmail does a good job of this. The only mail server I'm really pissed at these days is First Class (hint: I just wrote a new bounce processing system for a project. I fed it 70,000 bounces, and it managed to handle all of them except about 800. Of those 800, half were from first class servers. In fact, NO first class server bounce was able to be automatically processed. Exchange and Notes were very distant second and 3rd for messing up stuff such that I couldn't process things....)
Sendmail gets a bad rap for things that people writing stupid interfaces to it make it do.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam my clothes down here, will you?
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cba6e2cdeb87a24714c0f51cafbae4c2.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue 29-Oct-2002 at 04:55:29PM +0000, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
This is much like Reply-To munging. I can see situations where it might be useful, but personally I'd rather receive the message as the poster sent-it (or as near as possible). For instance, I've often redistributed list archives as mbox files; personalised mail means that they can't be regarded as a definitive 'historical record'.
Ok, I bet I can turn this off as a user, but please don't make it the default for mailman.
As an aside, I'd prefer that any messages _I_ send to a list arn't rewritten so as to appear as if I sent them directly to every recipient. It gives a very different impression, not something I'd be happy with in general - Since I'm really _not_ sending mail for the personal immediate attention of all those people.
Seeing my own address in a message header raises a mental flag that this message was sent to me personally
Agreed, I have no problems filtering this list format (not least since filtering incoming mail on 'To' is bad practice anyway), but I do highlight messages with my own address in the headers - Something that is now (somewhat) messed-up.
-- Bruno
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/01aa7d6d4db83982a2f6dd363d0ee0f3.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
First off, yes, I turned on personalization for this list, and yes, I should have notified the list members before doing this. I talked it over with the list owners, but that clearly wasn't enough. My apologies.
But don't forget your special place of honor <wink> as guinea pigs for the new software, so complaints are welcome and taken in that constructive spirit too!
"NM" == Nigel Metheringham <Nigel.Metheringham@dev.intechnology.co.uk> writes:
NM> However I find the addition of my delivery address into the To
NM> line highly irritating (even more so if I use list specific
NM> delivery addresses).
You're not the only person who has complained about that, and I can see the point. I think Chuq was lobbying for not putting the recipient's address in the To line, but I disagreed because I thought it would be friendlier. Chuq was probably right and I was probably wrong.
So I'm willing to change that so that the To header is no different regardless of whether personalization is enabled or not. Ideally, we might want YACV (yet another configuration variable), but I'll default to yagni until we have a use case for otherwise.
As for any filters you might have in place, I think Chuq's right, you /should/ be filtering on List-ID. I can sympathize with filters on To headers, and my backtracking on this decision will fix that. I don't have much sympathy for filters on Sender headers. I put Sender squarely in the implementation detail corner so I feel like I can change that if necessary. You shouldn't be relying on Sender anyway because it's only required if different than the From header.
HTH, -Barry
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0d7c0c17c4c7f2d1008705a3b094842f.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Whatever change you made also broke the unsubscribe since I have been trying to get off the list since you started the "personalization" stuff.
(And yes, I did send email's to the proper address as indicated in the message headers...)
Regards
NetRom Internet Services 973-208-1339 voice john@netrom.com 973-208-0942 fax http://www.netrom.com
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/36ab6849e1c1ca4d3316e07b129a3362.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 20:52, John Vozza wrote:
Whatever change you made also broke the unsubscribe since I have been trying to get off the list since you started the "personalization" stuff.
Is that mail based unsubscribe? Certainly web based subscribe/unsubscribe is working since I did that yesterday morning after realising I had the wrong address subbed to those lists.
Nigel.
-- [ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@InTechnology.co.uk ] [ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3cb48ce8a69cdfa2b8187246b461b36.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
"Barry A. Warsaw" wrote:
Well, you can argue this on a philosophical basis, or on an enginerring "best practice" basis, but in the real world you only have so many things that a user can filter on. Netscape Mesenger only allows specific pre-configured headers to be used, and List-ID isn't one of them. To, CC, subject, sender, date, status, priority, and body. Body, of course, is incredibly slow, so I never use that one. Eudora adds "Any Header" which would at least allow List-ID to be noticed, but only in a context in which some string (like "mailman-users") will appear multiple times.
Maybe I should look again at moving my Messenger Mail to Mozilla, but previous tests show it is only capable of importing about half of my In box, so I don't exactly consider that appealing.
In other words, the filtering is going to be done based on the capabilities of the client. Something that is theoretically better may not be terrible useful.
Van
--
Sign up now for Quotes of the Day, a handful of quotations on a theme delivered every morning. Enlightenment! Daily, for free! mailto:twisted@whidbey.com?subject=Subscribe_QOTD
For web hosting and maintenance, visit Van's home page: http://www.domainvanhorn.com/van/
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/01aa7d6d4db83982a2f6dd363d0ee0f3.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
"GAVH" == G Armour Van Horn <vanhorn@whidbey.com> writes:
>> I put Sender squarely in the implementation detail corner so I
>> feel like I can change that if necessary. You shouldn't be
>> relying on Sender anyway because it's only required if
>> different than the From header.
GAVH> Well, you can argue this on a philosophical basis, or on an
GAVH> enginerring "best practice" basis, but in the real world you
GAVH> only have so many things that a user can filter on.
But you can't rely on the Sender header being there at all, so it makes a poor choice for filtering on anyway.
-Barry
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 01:29 PM, G. Armour Van Horn wrote:
and at some point, you have to decide not to wait for everyone else to get their act together, because they won't unless you push them. we don't want to stick with HTML 3.2 and black and white TVs forever, do we?
the fact that some people using some clients are going to be inconvenienced is not necessarily an excuse to force everyone else to be inconvenienced by avoiding innovations. there's no 100% solution to any of this. the trick is to know when it's time to stop waiting and move forward.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 09:10 AM, bronto wrote:
This will be good advice once all the mail clients support filtering on List-ID. What about now?
Get a better mail client. or double check. The good mail clients let you specify custom headers to filter on, so just create a custom one for list-id.
If your mail client really is braindead (how do you filter on yahoogroups then?) then Sender is an acceptable backup, and there's no excuse for a client to not filter on that, IMHO. sender should be stable most of the time, but might change during upgrades. List-ID is defined to be static across the life of a list just for this reason.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
IMHO: Jargon. Acronym for In My Humble Opinion. Used to flag as an opinion something that is clearly from context an opinion to everyone except the mentally dense. Opinions flagged by IMHO are actually rarely humble. IMHO. (source: third unabridged dictionary of chuqui-isms).
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e2b8b38085c15e6f0b6964eb11ba2709.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Eudora, both Mac and Windows, I consider a good mail client. Cross platform is a requirement for me. It's weakness is complex filtering. If either one can filter on List-ID, I'd like to know how.
But that's beside the point, because we can't always control what clients our users use. To say that filtering on to/from is "incorrect" is a bit over the top, IMHO.
Rob
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 07:23 PM, bronto wrote:
Eudora, both Mac and Windows, I consider a good mail client.
I did, three years ago. too bad they went and programmed that stupid chili pepper filter instead of doing basic things like fixing HTML rendering. now, it's a pretty weak mail client.
Cross platform is a requirement for me. It's weakness is complex filtering. If either one can filter on List-ID, I'd like to know how.
Simple. Create a filter (this is Eudora 5.1 on OS 9, FWIW. but this filter's been available forever).
For header, type in "list-id:". leave the pop up on "contains". To the right of contains type in "python.org". set your actions to be whatever you want. Save it.
eudora's one of the easier ones to do this in. too bad the interface is so geeky, because you have to have solved the problem to know how to solve the problem.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 07:23 PM, bronto wrote:
No, it's not. Not a bit. One of the things my organization does is manage the email systems for our corporation (not a small one). and we set policy on email clients quite simply: "here are the ones we support. If you use something else, we wish you luck. If it doesn't work right, we hope you can fix it".
True, we can't FORCE them to use only supported software. Nor do I think you should try. but that doesn't make failures of that unsupported stuff MY (our) problem. It could well be there's a good reason we don't recommend you use it, after all....
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e2b8b38085c15e6f0b6964eb11ba2709.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
But yours is a situation where you *can* influence the client. If a business tells it's customers they have to change mail clients the proper response would be "who do you think you are, Microsoft?". And they'd be right, too.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 07:52 PM, bronto wrote:
Sorry, disagree. I think it's perfectly legitimate to say "these are the only tools we can support, because these are the only ones we've tested and know work to our standards. If you don't use them, we can't guarantee they'll work right".
If you think we can influence our user base, you don't know our user base. but what we CAN do is set groundrules that point out where our sphere of responsibility ends. then it's up to the user whether or not to tread into unsupported waters. Because tehy want to doesn't make it our responsibility to support it.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam my clothes down here, will you?
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/92f5a450a976e327149e8367ffad0947.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:32:56PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
I have no recollection of any mailing list ever sending me a list of supported MUAs when I subscribed.
-- When we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists have already won. - reverius
Innocence is no protection when governments go bad. - Tom Swiss
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ca55c99f9c7828440ffb4853f6a93759.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 13:44, Dave Sherohman wrote:
IIRC, he wasn't speaking in the context of mailing lists. He was speaking in the context of a corporate helpdesk that supports employee or contract customer users. The fact that it's impractical to make the same sort of proclaimations in a public mailing list setting is why historically an MLM would attempt to cater to the LCD. If I understand the discussion that has gone on here, the thinking is that it's time to push the issue a little bit in order to raise the bar. I agree with that line of thinking, but I don't necessarily agree with all the ways in which it was implemented. However, what seems at first glance to be a change for the worse sometimes turns out in the long term to be a change for the better, so I'm keeping an open mind and respecting the judgement of those wiser in such matters than myself.
Kyle
Since the general civilizations of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. -James Madison
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/92f5a450a976e327149e8367ffad0947.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:12:54PM -0600, Kyle Rhorer wrote:
Which was exactly my point. Even though it may be appropriate (and necessary) for Chuq's organization to provide lists of supported software to their customers, this does not mean that it is appropriate for MLM developers or list owners to dictate to their users what mail clients must be used with the list.
I agree, so long as the change is for the better, such as the List-* headers. I also tend to be quick when it comes to suggesting that people upgrade to MUAs that support a reply-to-list function (or demand that their MUA vendor add it). But rearranging existing headers and clobbering their original content strikes me as a very, very bad idea.
Was this discussed onlist before being implemented? If so, does anyone remember a thread title and approximate time frame so I can look it up in the archive? This discussion has focused entirely on why it's bad and I'd like to see what potential positive points there might be in its favor.
-- When we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists have already won. - reverius
Innocence is no protection when governments go bad. - Tom Swiss
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ca55c99f9c7828440ffb4853f6a93759.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 14:29, Dave Sherohman wrote:
Was this discussed onlist before being implemented?
Apparently it was discussed on mailman-developers.
I was just thinking not more than 5 minutes ago about making the following request, but you (sort of) beat me to it. Here goes: there was apparently discussion on mailman-developers that hashed out some of the same issues we're discussing here. If the discussion there was anything like it is here, it would take quite a lot of time to wade through the archives to follow the discussion. Is there someone here who is also subscribed to mailman-developers and wouldn't mind posting a summary of the discussion that went on there?
Thanks, Kyle
Since the general civilizations of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. -James Madison
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3cb48ce8a69cdfa2b8187246b461b36.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Gosh, I get a lot of mail here that doesn't have anything resembling a List-ID header, and I don't recall every seeing the filter settings for my mail software (Eudora and NS Messenger) that offered to filter on that header, so I can't accept your contention that filtering on other fields is "incorrect."
That is the same as my saying that the nickname derived from Charles is "Chuck" and that "Chuq" is wrong.
Van
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
--
Sign up now for Quotes of the Day, a handful of quotations on a theme delivered every morning. Enlightenment! Daily, for free! mailto:twisted@whidbey.com?subject=Subscribe_QOTD
For web hosting and maintenance, visit Van's home page: http://www.domainvanhorn.com/van/
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 10:24 AM, G. Armour Van Horn wrote:
Point taken. If list-ID exists, it is what you should use to filter list mail on. not all list servers support list-ID yet, but the right answer is to encourage them to follow the standards, and you should.
Of course, some folks have, in fact, tried to have that discussion with me... Not that it worked.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
He doesn't have ulcers, but he's a carrier.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/af256e2d09d199d6afedb5907d3af882.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuq Von Rospach" <chuqui@plaidworks.com>
Not to sound like Mr. Negativity, but your proposed filter on List-ID isn't implementable on many mainstream MUAs. So I have seen this question asked already, but read no response so far - I use Outlook as my MUA, so how do I sort on the List-ID field (impossible from what I know of Outlook)? From what you appear to be supporting I have two choices - be screwed or change MUAs - neither are acceptable answers from my standpoint.
I also have the issue of seeing the mail headers reflect that the mail was sent to me and CC'd to the list, especially since the from line states your name and not the list name. This isn't correct (read as wrong!). I did not receive the mail directly from you as indicated based on the painly visible header fields. The original mail was not CC'd to the list as indicated either. In fact, it was mailed to the list and distributed from the list to me. Maybe this is a semantic, but it's how folks see and read the To, From, CC headers - including myself. Creating this kind confusion and making it harder to relate to how a mail comes to be delivered is not a standard that I believe will gain support. If you think folks want to spend their time examining headers to understand how the mail was really handled, then you're on the right track here. But if you really understand end users, you will know better. Now, did I send this mail to you directly or did it come through the list? Would you know for sure if you hadn't filtered it without digging through the headers? I believe my point has been made if you think about it a little.
I've been doing email for over 23 years now and I've never seen this kind of header mutation come to be accepted and I really hope Mailman doesn't keep t his adaptation. I think it is unacceptable to alter the headers this way - just my two cents.
Thanks for the listen, Mike
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/623e91a80c0a1ff9cb18b70bbadaba1c.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:13:24AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
:
It's a feature, not a bug.
ouch!
Is this feature enabled by default? If so, I urge you to reconsider.
I think the use of this feature should be strongly deprecated, like reply-to munging.
-- Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@impressive.net> http://impressive.net/people/gerald/
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 09:12 AM, Gerald Oskoboiny wrote:
No. and I wouldn't expect it to be in 2.1. but I think it ought to be considered an indication of "future directions in thinking". hint hint.
I think the use of this feature should be strongly deprecated, like reply-to munging.
why? I'm curious. Other than it's "not what I'm used to"?
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
He doesn't have ulcers, but he's a carrier.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/623e91a80c0a1ff9cb18b70bbadaba1c.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 09:50:16AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
whew.
but I think it ought to be considered an indication of "future directions in thinking". hint hint.
<marge>hmmmmm...</marge>
I agree with almost everything Jay Sekora has written in this thread.
When I look at the headers of a message, I expect to see them as they were composed by the message author. I don't think MLMs should alter the contents of important headers like To:, From:, Cc:, Subject:, Message-Id:, Reply-To:, except in very rare cases.
-- Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@impressive.net> http://impressive.net/people/gerald/
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 11:27 AM, Gerald Oskoboiny wrote:
I agree with almost everything Jay Sekora has written in this thread.
it's too bad these issues didn't come up as this got hashed out on mailman-developers. it's good that it's going to get hashed out while it's still in beta. there's probably a "hint hint" in there somewhere...
Except MLMs have a long tradition of modifying them. If you CC or BCC a list, it generally rewrites itself into the to line. We've changed that to CC. there's a long tradition of modifying subject (list flags for one, cleaning up "Re:" issues for another) and reply-to. These modifications are quite common and accepted.
I don't think what's being done is out of the ordinary. I do think it's not "what we're used to", but I think that's because there are some basic assumptions about how this stuff works have been rethought. the key one is "mailing list manager as bulk e-mailer". Traditionally, true. But a basic requirement? I don't think so. Instead, it was more a situation forced on us by capacity limitations, which are rapidly being relaxed. Since (most of us) have increased processing capability and network, we should figure out how to properly operate in that environment, where we're doing what a server OUGHT to do once the shackles are removed (and since we know not everyone has those capabilities, it's not a requirement to use them...).
to me, saying we shouldn't innovate here is like telling HTML people to stop at HTML 3.2 and GIFs, and forget all that newer stuff. The reality is, most MLMs act pretty much like they acted back in the early 80's. the net and e-mail itself have changed radically, this is the first step in trying to make sure the MLM environment adapts to and takes advantage of all of those changes and innovations, too.
There are a lot of things we're trying to do to get away from "it was good enough for my grandfather...." mode in MLM. another area you folks haven't even started yelling about yet is in the MIME world. 2.1 is taking the first steps from dealing with MIME as a pain in the ass that should be thrown out to something that is an integral part of e-mail that has to be managed (and can be taken advantage of). The days when mime is handled by simply stripping it out are ending, because it's time to sell that old black and white TV and buy a color one... (giggle).
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam my clothes down here, will you?
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/43a85a0be9c2734ae2b28861d7135ca8.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
A lot of us are users and not developers, but we still have feelings (strong ones in this case) on major changes like this. Perhaps mailman-users was the right place for the discussion, not mailman-developers.
I work on a commercial email product and so I can't legally (as defined by my company's lawyers) look at the mailman source code. For that reason I never joined the developers list.
Do we need a mailman-advanced-users list?
alex
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ee153da9fc482b4062db1d5706e79d7a.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
[ Sorry for jumping in late; deadlines have been causing me to ignore my list-mail >:]
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Chuq Von Rospach had to walk into mine and say:
why? I'm curious. Other than it's "not what I'm used to"?
That's it in a nutshell. It violates the principle of "Least Surprise".
At least for discussion lists, we users have years (even decades) of experience with the concept that the e-mail address of the individual subscriber does not appear in the To: or Cc: headers. We are therefore (understandably) surprised when this changes.
As far as I'm concerned, the filtering digression is a red herring; it's not the real issue.
I believe that personalisation is cool. I know that there are *some* environments where To/CC munging is a positive, not a negative; corporate customer communication is an obvious example. I know personalisation can be turned on and off.
*My* question is:
Can this new To/Cc munging sub-option of personalisation be enabled
or disabled separately from other personalisation tricks (like the
personalised list-info URL you mentioned in the other thread)? I
suspect that an option to do this would be the final piece to make
everyone happy...
You also wrote:
I've never used one, and I don't encounter them that often in the field. That is my personal experience, but I'm (currently) subscribed to about 150 mailing lists and I've been doing this for 18 years...
-- Harald Koch <chk@pobox.com>
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/01aa7d6d4db83982a2f6dd363d0ee0f3.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
"HK" == Harald Koch <chk@pobox.com> writes:
HK> Can this new To/Cc munging sub-option of personalisation
HK> be enabled or disabled separately from other personalisation
HK> tricks (like the personalised list-info URL you mentioned in
HK> the other thread)?
Yes, and it wouldn't be hard, although it would require yet another list configuration variable.
Is it worth it for MM2.1? Note that I currently have To-munging disabled by commenting out the relevant code. Someone using Mailman for a corporate announce list, for which To-munging would be very useful, could re-enable site-wide by uncommenting the code. Enabling it on a per-list basis requires a configuration variable.
-Barry
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/db32238d5eebf878622c8bd2770a7d0e.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 18:04:41 -0500 Barry A Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:
"HK" == Harald Koch <chk@pobox.com> writes:
HK> Can this new To/Cc munging sub-option of personalisation be enabled HK> or disabled separately from other personalisation tricks (like the HK> personalised list-info URL you mentioned in the other thread)?
Yes, and it wouldn't be hard, although it would require yet another list configuration variable.
Is it worth it for MM2.1?
I'd sure like it, and it would speed acceptance/deployment at work.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/01aa7d6d4db83982a2f6dd363d0ee0f3.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
"JCL" == J C Lawrence <claw@kanga.nu> writes:
>>>>> "HK" == Harald Koch <chk@pobox.com> writes:
HK> Can this new To/Cc munging sub-option of personalisation be
HK> enabled or disabled separately from other personalisation
HK> tricks (like the personalised list-info URL you mentioned in
HK> the other thread)?
[Me]
>> Yes, and it wouldn't be hard, although it would require yet
>> another list configuration variable.
>> Is it worth it for MM2.1?
JCL> I'd sure like it, and it would speed acceptance/deployment at
JCL> work.
I just realized it wouldn't need another configuration variable, but just to expand the personalization variable to be 3-way. So now you can set it to "No", "Yes", or "Full Personalization" with the latter meaning to also munge the To header. Seems like a reasonable compromise for MM2.1.
-Barry
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/43a85a0be9c2734ae2b28861d7135ca8.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
The problem with personalization in the To: header is that I can't tell if email is to me or just to the list.
I have my email client color messages depending on what is in the To: header. If my name is there it is one color, if not it is another color. In folders for mailing lists this makes it very easy to skim for replies to my messages. With personalization turned on it is impossible for me to use this feature anymore.
I think personalization in the footers is great (personalized response), and sticking an X-MailmanTo header or something would be great. Making it look like each message is to me, instead of to the list, is terrible.
Hopefully personalization can be turned on without requiring this as well.
alex
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
at this point, no. But I think it's an interesting question whether personalization should require the to/cc header mods or not. I can see why you might want to personalize other parts but not that.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen asleep yet.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cee450427af8c49ee14315d339e75892.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 10/29/02 7:54 AM, "Michael Radziej" <mir@suse.com> wrote:
Take a look at the bottom of the message. If there's a footer, it's unlikely that your sender typed that in. If there's not, and it's html, check for the list headers.
- Stoney
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d49b127181b4e1dd56e48d56c4e6bfff.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Same here, and the response I got from the list owner isn't very encouraging:
You have reached the Mailman-Users administrator. This is a canned response; it is doubtful that I will respond personally to your message.
Most likely it's a problem with the migration to 2.1b4.
Em Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:42:13PM +0100, Michael Radziej escreveu:
why is everybody adding my email address into the cc field? Please stop it.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c275613918ea75d8f7f0112dd7fc805f.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Or the new way 2.1b4 sends mail (feature or bug?, barry will know).
If you look the to: is your address and the cc: is the mailing list.
- Andreas Hasenack (andreas@conectiva.com.br) wrote:
Matthew Davis http://dogpound.vnet.net/
I haven't lost my mind; I'm sure it's backed up on tape somewhere!
Tuesday, October 29, 2002 / 09:19AM
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/69fa6906cce076357c354b1521566c61.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hello,
why is everybody adding my email address into the cc field? Please stop it.
Michael
--
Michael Radziej SuSE Linux AG phone +49-911-74053-646 Internal IT Deutschherrenstr. 15-19 fax +49-911-3206727 (vormals interne EDV) 90429 Nürnberg, Germany web http://www.suse.de
Ich geb's zu, es ist manchmal alptraumartig.
cg am 24.10.2002 über perl
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/69fa6906cce076357c354b1521566c61.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Oops ...
sorry for my stupid rant :-)
It seems that the new mailman now creates individual "To:" headers. I'm not sure if I like this since I cannot tell whether the recipient wanted to send the mail really to me and only cc the list (so he might expect a personal answer from myself), or if it's just a regular list mail. But this is definitely not the fault of Brian or somebody else ...
Cheerio,
Michael
--
Michael Radziej SuSE Linux AG phone +49-911-74053-646 Internal IT Deutschherrenstr. 15-19 fax +49-911-3206727 (vormals interne EDV) 90429 Nürnberg, Germany web http://www.suse.de
Ich geb's zu, es ist manchmal alptraumartig.
cg am 24.10.2002 über perl
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/36ab6849e1c1ca4d3316e07b129a3362.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 12:54, Michael Radziej wrote:
Its either that personalisation has been switched on - which I think is in general bad for a general purpose list, or a (n unecessary) side effect of VERP handling, although if thats the case then the VERP limiting has been set so all messages are VERPed.
I guess it will change after the US folks get going again... unless Barry is wanting to knock all the bugs out of personalisation by stressing it a little.
Nigel.
-- [ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@InTechnology.co.uk ] [ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 05:13 AM, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
Its either that personalisation has been switched on - which I think is in general bad for a general purpose list,
It is. This is a new feature of 2.1, folks. And I disagree strongly with Nigel that it's a bad idea. I've been running my lists with personalization on for about 10 days now (they got all the pain fixing things...), and it's a nice plus. It'll be nicer once Barry adds some of the personalization into the footer. Once this is turned on, you can do some neat things like pre-load the URL for the listinfo page so it takes a user to their info directly, not a generic page where they have to figure out what to do.
It's a feature, not a bug.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cc550c77f5d962b88e761a6690ef727c.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 10:13, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
But it is a "bug" to enable this behavior on existing lists without alerting people clearly. Obviously it's screwing up many people's filters. List administrators take note -- don't do this on your own lists when you upgrade!
--Jeremy
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 07:20 AM, Jeremy Portzer wrote:
alerting people clearly. Obviously it's screwing up many people's filters.
then your filters were set up wrong. You sohuld have been filtering on List-ID all along, since that's what it's there for. Filtering on to/from is incorrect, so saying we shouldn't break it is also incorrect.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cc550c77f5d962b88e761a6690ef727c.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 11:40, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
Personally, *my* filters were correct; I'm having no problems.
It's just a general good idea that when you change things, you should let your users know of the changes. I agree that filtering on To/From is not idea, but many people do not know better. Many people are used to other list software that has nothing like List-ID, so they're forced to filtering on To/From.
One of the rules of effective system administration is to not piss off your users. I was just trying to remind people of this! You can be a BOFH in private, but that attitude doesn't work in real life.
--Jeremy (fortunately, this thread is already marked OFFTOPIC!)
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 08:52 AM, Jeremy Portzer wrote:
It's just a general good idea that when you change things, you should let your users know of the changes.
I don't disagree. I thought Barry did send out a warning that the list was going to 2.1.
One of the rules of effective system administration is to not piss off your users.
On the other hand, people have to remember this list is about mailman, so testing mailman on it is a necessary evil, and things are going to happen that, ahem, aren't always what's planned. The joy of beta code is even if you do get all the warnings, stuff's going to change in ways that you may not be ready for (because it might be broken...)
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
The Cliff's Notes Cliff's Notes on Hamlet: And they all died happily ever after
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/01aa7d6d4db83982a2f6dd363d0ee0f3.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
"CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com> writes:
CVR> On the other hand, people have to remember this list is about
CVR> mailman, so testing mailman on it is a necessary evil, and
CVR> things are going to happen that, ahem, aren't always what's
CVR> planned. The joy of beta code is even if you do get all the
CVR> warnings, stuff's going to change in ways that you may not be
CVR> ready for (because it might be broken...)
I'll just add that Chuq's been exceedingly patient with the change to MM2.1 on this list. He's not mentioning the mailbombing the list owners got this morning because the bounce processor had a little bug in it.
(Hey Chuq, I /think/ I just nailed this one. ;)
fixed-in-cvs-ly y'rs, -Barry
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/9f12620ec7f94107455e08e25b9e7aa9.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:49:53 -0500 barry@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) wrote:
It sounds like we need to be careful moving from 2.1b3 to 2.1b4 then.
-- Raquel
Men show their characters in nothing more clearly than in what they think laughable. --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/36ab6849e1c1ca4d3316e07b129a3362.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 16:40, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
Agreed.
However I find the addition of my delivery address into the To line highly irritating (even more so if I use list specific delivery addresses). I'd far rather only see the list address, and any pre-existing additional addresses, in the header To/Cc lines. Seeing my own address in a message header raises a mental flag that this message was sent to me personally, and sincere as you are no doubt being Chuq, I don't think you would consider the last batch of messages from you all personally addressed to me :-)
If you want to put the real delivery address in the message put it in the footer - some mail systems (hello sendmail) happily bugger around with the header lines anyway so its not even a (completely) safe marker of which account is subscribed to the list.
Nigel.
-- [ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@InTechnology.co.uk ] [ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 08:55 AM, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
However I find the addition of my delivery address into the To line highly irritating
Why? I'm curious.
What you're seeing is the move of mailman away from a bulk delivery model.
Why? Because, among other things, it's the first step towards a fully-customized setup. 2.1 allows you to customize various aspects of your subscription in ways that couldn't be done before. Also, more and more mail systems throw a tainted eye at all bulk mail (and for that matter, anything that is sent using BCC), and I think it's important that we understand that and differentiate mailing lists from those bulk deliveries.
Well, it was. Mailman carefully packaged up the message I posted, and then customized it to the preferences of each subscriber of the list. yours was set up JUST for you, in fact. As the personallization aspects are added to the message templates, you'll see that more obviously. And if you choose to customize your subscription, you'll start taking more advantage of it...
actually, we could argue the philosophy of that at some point...
Actually, sendmail does a good job of this. The only mail server I'm really pissed at these days is First Class (hint: I just wrote a new bounce processing system for a project. I fed it 70,000 bounces, and it managed to handle all of them except about 800. Of those 800, half were from first class servers. In fact, NO first class server bounce was able to be automatically processed. Exchange and Notes were very distant second and 3rd for messing up stuff such that I couldn't process things....)
Sendmail gets a bad rap for things that people writing stupid interfaces to it make it do.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam my clothes down here, will you?
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cba6e2cdeb87a24714c0f51cafbae4c2.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue 29-Oct-2002 at 04:55:29PM +0000, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
This is much like Reply-To munging. I can see situations where it might be useful, but personally I'd rather receive the message as the poster sent-it (or as near as possible). For instance, I've often redistributed list archives as mbox files; personalised mail means that they can't be regarded as a definitive 'historical record'.
Ok, I bet I can turn this off as a user, but please don't make it the default for mailman.
As an aside, I'd prefer that any messages _I_ send to a list arn't rewritten so as to appear as if I sent them directly to every recipient. It gives a very different impression, not something I'd be happy with in general - Since I'm really _not_ sending mail for the personal immediate attention of all those people.
Seeing my own address in a message header raises a mental flag that this message was sent to me personally
Agreed, I have no problems filtering this list format (not least since filtering incoming mail on 'To' is bad practice anyway), but I do highlight messages with my own address in the headers - Something that is now (somewhat) messed-up.
-- Bruno
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/01aa7d6d4db83982a2f6dd363d0ee0f3.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
First off, yes, I turned on personalization for this list, and yes, I should have notified the list members before doing this. I talked it over with the list owners, but that clearly wasn't enough. My apologies.
But don't forget your special place of honor <wink> as guinea pigs for the new software, so complaints are welcome and taken in that constructive spirit too!
"NM" == Nigel Metheringham <Nigel.Metheringham@dev.intechnology.co.uk> writes:
NM> However I find the addition of my delivery address into the To
NM> line highly irritating (even more so if I use list specific
NM> delivery addresses).
You're not the only person who has complained about that, and I can see the point. I think Chuq was lobbying for not putting the recipient's address in the To line, but I disagreed because I thought it would be friendlier. Chuq was probably right and I was probably wrong.
So I'm willing to change that so that the To header is no different regardless of whether personalization is enabled or not. Ideally, we might want YACV (yet another configuration variable), but I'll default to yagni until we have a use case for otherwise.
As for any filters you might have in place, I think Chuq's right, you /should/ be filtering on List-ID. I can sympathize with filters on To headers, and my backtracking on this decision will fix that. I don't have much sympathy for filters on Sender headers. I put Sender squarely in the implementation detail corner so I feel like I can change that if necessary. You shouldn't be relying on Sender anyway because it's only required if different than the From header.
HTH, -Barry
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0d7c0c17c4c7f2d1008705a3b094842f.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Whatever change you made also broke the unsubscribe since I have been trying to get off the list since you started the "personalization" stuff.
(And yes, I did send email's to the proper address as indicated in the message headers...)
Regards
NetRom Internet Services 973-208-1339 voice john@netrom.com 973-208-0942 fax http://www.netrom.com
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/36ab6849e1c1ca4d3316e07b129a3362.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 20:52, John Vozza wrote:
Whatever change you made also broke the unsubscribe since I have been trying to get off the list since you started the "personalization" stuff.
Is that mail based unsubscribe? Certainly web based subscribe/unsubscribe is working since I did that yesterday morning after realising I had the wrong address subbed to those lists.
Nigel.
-- [ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@InTechnology.co.uk ] [ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3cb48ce8a69cdfa2b8187246b461b36.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
"Barry A. Warsaw" wrote:
Well, you can argue this on a philosophical basis, or on an enginerring "best practice" basis, but in the real world you only have so many things that a user can filter on. Netscape Mesenger only allows specific pre-configured headers to be used, and List-ID isn't one of them. To, CC, subject, sender, date, status, priority, and body. Body, of course, is incredibly slow, so I never use that one. Eudora adds "Any Header" which would at least allow List-ID to be noticed, but only in a context in which some string (like "mailman-users") will appear multiple times.
Maybe I should look again at moving my Messenger Mail to Mozilla, but previous tests show it is only capable of importing about half of my In box, so I don't exactly consider that appealing.
In other words, the filtering is going to be done based on the capabilities of the client. Something that is theoretically better may not be terrible useful.
Van
--
Sign up now for Quotes of the Day, a handful of quotations on a theme delivered every morning. Enlightenment! Daily, for free! mailto:twisted@whidbey.com?subject=Subscribe_QOTD
For web hosting and maintenance, visit Van's home page: http://www.domainvanhorn.com/van/
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/01aa7d6d4db83982a2f6dd363d0ee0f3.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
"GAVH" == G Armour Van Horn <vanhorn@whidbey.com> writes:
>> I put Sender squarely in the implementation detail corner so I
>> feel like I can change that if necessary. You shouldn't be
>> relying on Sender anyway because it's only required if
>> different than the From header.
GAVH> Well, you can argue this on a philosophical basis, or on an
GAVH> enginerring "best practice" basis, but in the real world you
GAVH> only have so many things that a user can filter on.
But you can't rely on the Sender header being there at all, so it makes a poor choice for filtering on anyway.
-Barry
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 01:29 PM, G. Armour Van Horn wrote:
and at some point, you have to decide not to wait for everyone else to get their act together, because they won't unless you push them. we don't want to stick with HTML 3.2 and black and white TVs forever, do we?
the fact that some people using some clients are going to be inconvenienced is not necessarily an excuse to force everyone else to be inconvenienced by avoiding innovations. there's no 100% solution to any of this. the trick is to know when it's time to stop waiting and move forward.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 09:10 AM, bronto wrote:
This will be good advice once all the mail clients support filtering on List-ID. What about now?
Get a better mail client. or double check. The good mail clients let you specify custom headers to filter on, so just create a custom one for list-id.
If your mail client really is braindead (how do you filter on yahoogroups then?) then Sender is an acceptable backup, and there's no excuse for a client to not filter on that, IMHO. sender should be stable most of the time, but might change during upgrades. List-ID is defined to be static across the life of a list just for this reason.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
IMHO: Jargon. Acronym for In My Humble Opinion. Used to flag as an opinion something that is clearly from context an opinion to everyone except the mentally dense. Opinions flagged by IMHO are actually rarely humble. IMHO. (source: third unabridged dictionary of chuqui-isms).
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e2b8b38085c15e6f0b6964eb11ba2709.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Eudora, both Mac and Windows, I consider a good mail client. Cross platform is a requirement for me. It's weakness is complex filtering. If either one can filter on List-ID, I'd like to know how.
But that's beside the point, because we can't always control what clients our users use. To say that filtering on to/from is "incorrect" is a bit over the top, IMHO.
Rob
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 07:23 PM, bronto wrote:
Eudora, both Mac and Windows, I consider a good mail client.
I did, three years ago. too bad they went and programmed that stupid chili pepper filter instead of doing basic things like fixing HTML rendering. now, it's a pretty weak mail client.
Cross platform is a requirement for me. It's weakness is complex filtering. If either one can filter on List-ID, I'd like to know how.
Simple. Create a filter (this is Eudora 5.1 on OS 9, FWIW. but this filter's been available forever).
For header, type in "list-id:". leave the pop up on "contains". To the right of contains type in "python.org". set your actions to be whatever you want. Save it.
eudora's one of the easier ones to do this in. too bad the interface is so geeky, because you have to have solved the problem to know how to solve the problem.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e2b8b38085c15e6f0b6964eb11ba2709.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Yes, HTML suffers, particularly on the Mac.
Too cool; I always just assumed that what was in the drop down was the only options available. Type it in? Doh!
Now, can you tell me how to put in AND or OR logic? :')
Rob
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 07:23 PM, bronto wrote:
No, it's not. Not a bit. One of the things my organization does is manage the email systems for our corporation (not a small one). and we set policy on email clients quite simply: "here are the ones we support. If you use something else, we wish you luck. If it doesn't work right, we hope you can fix it".
True, we can't FORCE them to use only supported software. Nor do I think you should try. but that doesn't make failures of that unsupported stuff MY (our) problem. It could well be there's a good reason we don't recommend you use it, after all....
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e2b8b38085c15e6f0b6964eb11ba2709.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
But yours is a situation where you *can* influence the client. If a business tells it's customers they have to change mail clients the proper response would be "who do you think you are, Microsoft?". And they'd be right, too.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 07:52 PM, bronto wrote:
Sorry, disagree. I think it's perfectly legitimate to say "these are the only tools we can support, because these are the only ones we've tested and know work to our standards. If you don't use them, we can't guarantee they'll work right".
If you think we can influence our user base, you don't know our user base. but what we CAN do is set groundrules that point out where our sphere of responsibility ends. then it's up to the user whether or not to tread into unsupported waters. Because tehy want to doesn't make it our responsibility to support it.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam my clothes down here, will you?
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/92f5a450a976e327149e8367ffad0947.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:32:56PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
I have no recollection of any mailing list ever sending me a list of supported MUAs when I subscribed.
-- When we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists have already won. - reverius
Innocence is no protection when governments go bad. - Tom Swiss
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ca55c99f9c7828440ffb4853f6a93759.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 13:44, Dave Sherohman wrote:
IIRC, he wasn't speaking in the context of mailing lists. He was speaking in the context of a corporate helpdesk that supports employee or contract customer users. The fact that it's impractical to make the same sort of proclaimations in a public mailing list setting is why historically an MLM would attempt to cater to the LCD. If I understand the discussion that has gone on here, the thinking is that it's time to push the issue a little bit in order to raise the bar. I agree with that line of thinking, but I don't necessarily agree with all the ways in which it was implemented. However, what seems at first glance to be a change for the worse sometimes turns out in the long term to be a change for the better, so I'm keeping an open mind and respecting the judgement of those wiser in such matters than myself.
Kyle
Since the general civilizations of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. -James Madison
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/92f5a450a976e327149e8367ffad0947.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:12:54PM -0600, Kyle Rhorer wrote:
Which was exactly my point. Even though it may be appropriate (and necessary) for Chuq's organization to provide lists of supported software to their customers, this does not mean that it is appropriate for MLM developers or list owners to dictate to their users what mail clients must be used with the list.
I agree, so long as the change is for the better, such as the List-* headers. I also tend to be quick when it comes to suggesting that people upgrade to MUAs that support a reply-to-list function (or demand that their MUA vendor add it). But rearranging existing headers and clobbering their original content strikes me as a very, very bad idea.
Was this discussed onlist before being implemented? If so, does anyone remember a thread title and approximate time frame so I can look it up in the archive? This discussion has focused entirely on why it's bad and I'd like to see what potential positive points there might be in its favor.
-- When we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists have already won. - reverius
Innocence is no protection when governments go bad. - Tom Swiss
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ca55c99f9c7828440ffb4853f6a93759.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 14:29, Dave Sherohman wrote:
Was this discussed onlist before being implemented?
Apparently it was discussed on mailman-developers.
I was just thinking not more than 5 minutes ago about making the following request, but you (sort of) beat me to it. Here goes: there was apparently discussion on mailman-developers that hashed out some of the same issues we're discussing here. If the discussion there was anything like it is here, it would take quite a lot of time to wade through the archives to follow the discussion. Is there someone here who is also subscribed to mailman-developers and wouldn't mind posting a summary of the discussion that went on there?
Thanks, Kyle
Since the general civilizations of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. -James Madison
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3cb48ce8a69cdfa2b8187246b461b36.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Gosh, I get a lot of mail here that doesn't have anything resembling a List-ID header, and I don't recall every seeing the filter settings for my mail software (Eudora and NS Messenger) that offered to filter on that header, so I can't accept your contention that filtering on other fields is "incorrect."
That is the same as my saying that the nickname derived from Charles is "Chuck" and that "Chuq" is wrong.
Van
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
--
Sign up now for Quotes of the Day, a handful of quotations on a theme delivered every morning. Enlightenment! Daily, for free! mailto:twisted@whidbey.com?subject=Subscribe_QOTD
For web hosting and maintenance, visit Van's home page: http://www.domainvanhorn.com/van/
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 10:24 AM, G. Armour Van Horn wrote:
Point taken. If list-ID exists, it is what you should use to filter list mail on. not all list servers support list-ID yet, but the right answer is to encourage them to follow the standards, and you should.
Of course, some folks have, in fact, tried to have that discussion with me... Not that it worked.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
He doesn't have ulcers, but he's a carrier.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/af256e2d09d199d6afedb5907d3af882.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuq Von Rospach" <chuqui@plaidworks.com>
Not to sound like Mr. Negativity, but your proposed filter on List-ID isn't implementable on many mainstream MUAs. So I have seen this question asked already, but read no response so far - I use Outlook as my MUA, so how do I sort on the List-ID field (impossible from what I know of Outlook)? From what you appear to be supporting I have two choices - be screwed or change MUAs - neither are acceptable answers from my standpoint.
I also have the issue of seeing the mail headers reflect that the mail was sent to me and CC'd to the list, especially since the from line states your name and not the list name. This isn't correct (read as wrong!). I did not receive the mail directly from you as indicated based on the painly visible header fields. The original mail was not CC'd to the list as indicated either. In fact, it was mailed to the list and distributed from the list to me. Maybe this is a semantic, but it's how folks see and read the To, From, CC headers - including myself. Creating this kind confusion and making it harder to relate to how a mail comes to be delivered is not a standard that I believe will gain support. If you think folks want to spend their time examining headers to understand how the mail was really handled, then you're on the right track here. But if you really understand end users, you will know better. Now, did I send this mail to you directly or did it come through the list? Would you know for sure if you hadn't filtered it without digging through the headers? I believe my point has been made if you think about it a little.
I've been doing email for over 23 years now and I've never seen this kind of header mutation come to be accepted and I really hope Mailman doesn't keep t his adaptation. I think it is unacceptable to alter the headers this way - just my two cents.
Thanks for the listen, Mike
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/623e91a80c0a1ff9cb18b70bbadaba1c.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:13:24AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
:
It's a feature, not a bug.
ouch!
Is this feature enabled by default? If so, I urge you to reconsider.
I think the use of this feature should be strongly deprecated, like reply-to munging.
-- Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@impressive.net> http://impressive.net/people/gerald/
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 09:12 AM, Gerald Oskoboiny wrote:
No. and I wouldn't expect it to be in 2.1. but I think it ought to be considered an indication of "future directions in thinking". hint hint.
I think the use of this feature should be strongly deprecated, like reply-to munging.
why? I'm curious. Other than it's "not what I'm used to"?
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
He doesn't have ulcers, but he's a carrier.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/623e91a80c0a1ff9cb18b70bbadaba1c.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 09:50:16AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
whew.
but I think it ought to be considered an indication of "future directions in thinking". hint hint.
<marge>hmmmmm...</marge>
I agree with almost everything Jay Sekora has written in this thread.
When I look at the headers of a message, I expect to see them as they were composed by the message author. I don't think MLMs should alter the contents of important headers like To:, From:, Cc:, Subject:, Message-Id:, Reply-To:, except in very rare cases.
-- Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@impressive.net> http://impressive.net/people/gerald/
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 11:27 AM, Gerald Oskoboiny wrote:
I agree with almost everything Jay Sekora has written in this thread.
it's too bad these issues didn't come up as this got hashed out on mailman-developers. it's good that it's going to get hashed out while it's still in beta. there's probably a "hint hint" in there somewhere...
Except MLMs have a long tradition of modifying them. If you CC or BCC a list, it generally rewrites itself into the to line. We've changed that to CC. there's a long tradition of modifying subject (list flags for one, cleaning up "Re:" issues for another) and reply-to. These modifications are quite common and accepted.
I don't think what's being done is out of the ordinary. I do think it's not "what we're used to", but I think that's because there are some basic assumptions about how this stuff works have been rethought. the key one is "mailing list manager as bulk e-mailer". Traditionally, true. But a basic requirement? I don't think so. Instead, it was more a situation forced on us by capacity limitations, which are rapidly being relaxed. Since (most of us) have increased processing capability and network, we should figure out how to properly operate in that environment, where we're doing what a server OUGHT to do once the shackles are removed (and since we know not everyone has those capabilities, it's not a requirement to use them...).
to me, saying we shouldn't innovate here is like telling HTML people to stop at HTML 3.2 and GIFs, and forget all that newer stuff. The reality is, most MLMs act pretty much like they acted back in the early 80's. the net and e-mail itself have changed radically, this is the first step in trying to make sure the MLM environment adapts to and takes advantage of all of those changes and innovations, too.
There are a lot of things we're trying to do to get away from "it was good enough for my grandfather...." mode in MLM. another area you folks haven't even started yelling about yet is in the MIME world. 2.1 is taking the first steps from dealing with MIME as a pain in the ass that should be thrown out to something that is an integral part of e-mail that has to be managed (and can be taken advantage of). The days when mime is handled by simply stripping it out are ending, because it's time to sell that old black and white TV and buy a color one... (giggle).
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam my clothes down here, will you?
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/43a85a0be9c2734ae2b28861d7135ca8.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
A lot of us are users and not developers, but we still have feelings (strong ones in this case) on major changes like this. Perhaps mailman-users was the right place for the discussion, not mailman-developers.
I work on a commercial email product and so I can't legally (as defined by my company's lawyers) look at the mailman source code. For that reason I never joined the developers list.
Do we need a mailman-advanced-users list?
alex
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ee153da9fc482b4062db1d5706e79d7a.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
[ Sorry for jumping in late; deadlines have been causing me to ignore my list-mail >:]
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Chuq Von Rospach had to walk into mine and say:
why? I'm curious. Other than it's "not what I'm used to"?
That's it in a nutshell. It violates the principle of "Least Surprise".
At least for discussion lists, we users have years (even decades) of experience with the concept that the e-mail address of the individual subscriber does not appear in the To: or Cc: headers. We are therefore (understandably) surprised when this changes.
As far as I'm concerned, the filtering digression is a red herring; it's not the real issue.
I believe that personalisation is cool. I know that there are *some* environments where To/CC munging is a positive, not a negative; corporate customer communication is an obvious example. I know personalisation can be turned on and off.
*My* question is:
Can this new To/Cc munging sub-option of personalisation be enabled
or disabled separately from other personalisation tricks (like the
personalised list-info URL you mentioned in the other thread)? I
suspect that an option to do this would be the final piece to make
everyone happy...
You also wrote:
I've never used one, and I don't encounter them that often in the field. That is my personal experience, but I'm (currently) subscribed to about 150 mailing lists and I've been doing this for 18 years...
-- Harald Koch <chk@pobox.com>
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/01aa7d6d4db83982a2f6dd363d0ee0f3.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
"HK" == Harald Koch <chk@pobox.com> writes:
HK> Can this new To/Cc munging sub-option of personalisation
HK> be enabled or disabled separately from other personalisation
HK> tricks (like the personalised list-info URL you mentioned in
HK> the other thread)?
Yes, and it wouldn't be hard, although it would require yet another list configuration variable.
Is it worth it for MM2.1? Note that I currently have To-munging disabled by commenting out the relevant code. Someone using Mailman for a corporate announce list, for which To-munging would be very useful, could re-enable site-wide by uncommenting the code. Enabling it on a per-list basis requires a configuration variable.
-Barry
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/db32238d5eebf878622c8bd2770a7d0e.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 18:04:41 -0500 Barry A Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:
"HK" == Harald Koch <chk@pobox.com> writes:
HK> Can this new To/Cc munging sub-option of personalisation be enabled HK> or disabled separately from other personalisation tricks (like the HK> personalised list-info URL you mentioned in the other thread)?
Yes, and it wouldn't be hard, although it would require yet another list configuration variable.
Is it worth it for MM2.1?
I'd sure like it, and it would speed acceptance/deployment at work.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/01aa7d6d4db83982a2f6dd363d0ee0f3.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
"JCL" == J C Lawrence <claw@kanga.nu> writes:
>>>>> "HK" == Harald Koch <chk@pobox.com> writes:
HK> Can this new To/Cc munging sub-option of personalisation be
HK> enabled or disabled separately from other personalisation
HK> tricks (like the personalised list-info URL you mentioned in
HK> the other thread)?
[Me]
>> Yes, and it wouldn't be hard, although it would require yet
>> another list configuration variable.
>> Is it worth it for MM2.1?
JCL> I'd sure like it, and it would speed acceptance/deployment at
JCL> work.
I just realized it wouldn't need another configuration variable, but just to expand the personalization variable to be 3-way. So now you can set it to "No", "Yes", or "Full Personalization" with the latter meaning to also munge the To header. Seems like a reasonable compromise for MM2.1.
-Barry
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/43a85a0be9c2734ae2b28861d7135ca8.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
The problem with personalization in the To: header is that I can't tell if email is to me or just to the list.
I have my email client color messages depending on what is in the To: header. If my name is there it is one color, if not it is another color. In folders for mailing lists this makes it very easy to skim for replies to my messages. With personalization turned on it is impossible for me to use this feature anymore.
I think personalization in the footers is great (personalized response), and sticking an X-MailmanTo header or something would be great. Making it look like each message is to me, instead of to the list, is terrible.
Hopefully personalization can be turned on without requiring this as well.
alex
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2206e8a0d58563f815a7568ea6675313.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
at this point, no. But I think it's an interesting question whether personalization should require the to/cc header mods or not. I can see why you might want to personalize other parts but not that.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen asleep yet.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cee450427af8c49ee14315d339e75892.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 10/29/02 7:54 AM, "Michael Radziej" <mir@suse.com> wrote:
Take a look at the bottom of the message. If there's a footer, it's unlikely that your sender typed that in. If there's not, and it's html, check for the list headers.
- Stoney
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d49b127181b4e1dd56e48d56c4e6bfff.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Same here, and the response I got from the list owner isn't very encouraging:
You have reached the Mailman-Users administrator. This is a canned response; it is doubtful that I will respond personally to your message.
Most likely it's a problem with the migration to 2.1b4.
Em Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:42:13PM +0100, Michael Radziej escreveu:
why is everybody adding my email address into the cc field? Please stop it.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c275613918ea75d8f7f0112dd7fc805f.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Or the new way 2.1b4 sends mail (feature or bug?, barry will know).
If you look the to: is your address and the cc: is the mailing list.
- Andreas Hasenack (andreas@conectiva.com.br) wrote:
Matthew Davis http://dogpound.vnet.net/
I haven't lost my mind; I'm sure it's backed up on tape somewhere!
Tuesday, October 29, 2002 / 09:19AM
participants (22)
-
alex wetmore
-
Andreas Hasenack
-
barry@python.org
-
Brian Read
-
bronto
-
Bruno Postle
-
Chuq Von Rospach
-
Dave Sherohman
-
G. Armour Van Horn
-
Gerald Oskoboiny
-
Harald Koch
-
J C Lawrence
-
Jeremy Portzer
-
John Vozza
-
Kyle Rhorer
-
Matthew Davis
-
Michael Radziej
-
Mike Burton
-
Nigel Metheringham
-
Raquel Rice
-
Richard Barrett
-
Stonewall Ballard