Re: OFFTOPIC Re: [Mailman-Users] Archive URL in postings (2.1b3)
Because it's simply a lie. I got this mail with the headers:
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com> To: jay@ccs.neu.edu cc: Mailman mailing list management users <mailman-users@python.org>
What that means to me is that Chuq Von Rospach knows me, knows my email address, deliberately decided to send this mail to me specifically, and thinks that the subscribers of mailman-users@python.org might be interested in looking over our shoulders as we have this personal conversation.
I often put people and/or lists in the To: or Cc: headers, or Bcc: headers, depending on the content of the mail and how important I think it is to them. I will trust lists less if they mess with what I put there.
I sometimes put actual content that is important to the message in those headers, such as:
To: People who attended my last party <jay@example.org> Bcc: jay-party-list@example.org Subject: Somebody left a jacket
I expect that people with civilized mailers are going to be able to see what I typed in the To: (and From: and Cc:) headers, and I consider that part of the message.
Back to filtering, I filter lots of my mailing lists into separate folders, but I only do so if my own address doesn't appear in the destination headers, because in that case I consider the message addressed to me as an individual as well as to the list, and I want it to end up in the place where mail-addressed-to-me-as-an-individual goes.
With this change that distinction is lost. I can no longer tell (except by seeing how many copies of a message I got, which may break in other ways if a message is sent to multiple lists) whether I was singled out as a particular more-interested recipient of a message, or if I got it only because I'm subscribed to a list.
For lists I administer, I'll just turn this off when I migrate.
For lists I'm subscribed to but filter to folders and read in batch mode, I'll just change my filters to adapt. That loses me the adavantage of treating messages that actually *did* list me individually as a recipient differently, and means that I might not see something that was sent to the list but Cc:'ed to me for some time, and might not get the chance to respond in a timely fashion.
For lists I'm subscribed to but *don't* filter to folders and normally read interspersed with the rest of my mail, I'd find the new behaviour sufficiently awful that I'd start filtering them (and be much less likely to read them in a timely fashion).
The end result (if Mailman-run lists were to routinely switch to this behaviour) is that I'll be subscribed to fewer lists than I am now, and that of the lists I stay subscribed to, I'll be a less active participant.
(On the other hand, I really want personalized footers and mailman-not-rfc822 "headers".)
If the new behaviour is optional and not the default, and you don't have to enable the (RFC822) header munging in order to turn on personalized delivery, then I see no problem with the new functionality being there. I can even imagine certain very special-purpose, broadcast-only lists where it might be desirable. But it's certainly not a behaviour I would want on any list I was subscribed to.
Sorry if this message comes across as heated. Maybe I've taken this discussion more personally because it was all addressed to me specifically. :-) Mailman is fabulous, and the improvements in the new version are generally great, and I'm looking forward to migrating to 2.1, and I think my users are going to love some of the new features.
But I sure am glad this particular change isn't going to be the default, (and I hope it doesn't prevent me from turning on personalized footers).
Cheers,
Jay
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 10:38 AM, Jay Sekora wrote:
Because it's simply a lie. I got this mail with the headers:
sorry. don't agree.
What that means to me is that Chuq Von Rospach knows me, knows my email address, deliberately decided to send this mail to me specifically,
um, interesting philosophy. I don't buy it. Not for a moment.
I think that filtering method is flawed, personally. I filter all list mail into a folder, using list-id, sender, mailing-list (damn you, yahoogroups), and occasionally a weird header from some funky list server that doesn't come near the standards except in leap years.
that way, I know what's in my personal mailbox is personal mail. Even if it's a reply I got from a posting to a mail list. That allows me to carry on a discussion on a list in a timely manner, even if (for instance) I don't read the mail in the list folder for a while. Like, well, this discussion...
not really. you STILL have List-ID. If it exists, you know it came through the server. If it doesn't, it's a direct copy. you haven't lost the ability to figure this out at all (and, in fact, it worked that way before. Your system, FWIW, fails if, say, I send email to the list and BCC you. Mine handles that appropriately...)
Sorry if this message comes across as heated.
not at all. Now's the right time to put this on the table and hash it out. Better now than AFTER it ships...
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
No! No! Dead girl, OFF the table! -- Shrek
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
This doesn't work in a few situations:
You are using an email system which removes duplicates (based on the Message-Id header). Microsoft Exchange 2000 is one such system. If Mailman is changing the headers so much perhaps it should stick a new Message-Id on the message though.
You want replies to your messages to show up in your mailman-users folder (or whatever), but colored in a different manner. I do this. If I'm away for a while and want to catch up on a folder I just scan for cyan messages. I don't want public replies to messages that I posted on a mailing list to end up in my private inbox.
At best this should be a user option. I checked, but it isn't there.
The only advantage that I see for putting the user's email address in the To line (vs another header or the footer) is that it slips by the default anti-spam rules on Hotmail and other products that assume bcc'd messages are spam.
alex
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 10:56 AM, alex wetmore wrote:
don't discount the importance of that... Bcc mail is increasingly being banned by sites. I'm not saying they should, but they are.
-- 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.
- Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com> [2002-10-29 10:45:28 -0800]:
"Lie" is kinda an interesting way to put it, but I think we all know what he means. How can you say that readdressing a mail (which is what you're doing here) isn't a "lie" the way he's referring to it? It's in plain black and white.
Well, OK then, how would you differentiate this new behaviour from a hypothetical message I might have sent pre-upgrade that _did_ have your address in the To: and the list in the CC:? Hint: you can't. (Of course, I acknowledge that sending a copy directly to a person who is already subscribed to the list is a bit silly/redundant, but I don't see that that dilutes the point at all. In five seconds I can think of a case where this would happen...I see a mail off the list, I don't know someone is subscribed, so I send them my followup but also CC the list because I think it pertains there also. With this new function, you've just erased anybody's ability to tell the difference between those two situations.) Saying you "don't buy" something that someone has stated is their opinion/feeling is indefensible. :)
When two mails are sent out, I'll get one filtered into my folder for the list, and the other one sent to my main inbox; that's the way the sender intended it, and that's the way I want it. That doesn't happen anymore, because there's actually only one email, since you've included a fake header. You're saying a (copy of an) email has been sent directly to me when it hasn't.
True...but should be unecessary. Besides, filtering into folders is only one application of header matching, as others have pointed out. Colorization of lines (based on whether your exact address is in the headers somewhere) in a message index is another, and List-ID won't help you on that one. :) But really, this is all getting away from the original philosophical point that an address that a message was not sent to should not be faked into the headers.
Break out the asbestos suits! :p
And again, like someone else said, it's not really that bad as long as it's configurable (and even better if it's not the default). BUT, I do/will consider it a step backwards for any lists I'm on to implement. Is there any chance of making a special setting so that all of the personalization options _except_ this one can be applied to an account? I'm going out on a limb here, but I think I may not be the only one who would like to see that. :)
--
John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 11:33 AM, John Buttery wrote:
we aren't re-addressing. We're standardizing the way the existing addresses are presented.
sure I can. If it went through the list server, it has a List-ID attached. So it's clear which one came from where.
See, I don't agree with that, either. I've explained how I take advantage of this in my filtering to continue discussions I'm involved in without having to paw through all my list mail...
Saying you "don't buy" something that someone has stated is their opinion/feeling is indefensible. :)
yeah, but when a situation is arguably a subjective decision in the first place, sometimes it's all you get.
and if you filter on list-id, that's how you'll get it no matter who does what to the to/cc/bcc. If you DON'T filter on list-id, you depend on the end users doing what you expect them to do. That's a filtering method guaranteed to fail randomly.
filtering list mail based on to/cc is a flawed approach. to argue that we can't break what's broken by definition is a flawed argument. IMHO.
True...but should be unecessary.
but it is, because it's the ONLY reliable filtering tool you have. the others depend on people doing what you consider "right", so they fail when those users don't. If anything, this new header format rationalizes that so decisions by the end users can't break the filtering, if you absolutely MUST use to/from/cc for some reason.
and if you'll notice, I haven't refuted that one. it's a point that needs consideration.
I'd argue whether that's true.
I guess I'm arguing that it's the end of the days of "bulk" mail, and the beginning of the days of "mass" mail. There are significant semantical differences and advantages. To use paper-mail analogies, it's time to move from sending out everything to "Resident", and start adding enough intelligence to the system so that it actually shows up with your name on it.
-- 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.
Forgive me if I'm a little behind on the issues, but this is something I didn't notice until the huge thread erupted...
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 12:30:06PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
I am sending this message with the header
To: Mailman mailing list management users <mailman-users@python.org>
If it arrives with a different address (such as "To: Your Name <you@some.domain.com>"), then it has been re-addressed. This is not standardizing the way the existing addresses are presented because "Your Name <you@some.domain.com>" is not an existing address.
That just tells you whether that specific copy came in via the list. It does not tell you whether a second copy was sent to you directly. To: munging destroys information just as clearly as Reply-To: munging.
filtering list mail based on to/cc is a flawed approach. to argue that we can't break what's broken by definition is a flawed argument. IMHO.
If the filtering on to/cc is being done solely for the sake of determining whether a copy of the message was sent directly to you personally (and not to determine whether the message was received via a mailing list, why is this flawed?
Such as?
Sending paper mail to <current resident's name> instead of to "resident" is a cheap trick used by bulk mail houses to convince people that they're receiving personalized mail instead of form letters. Faking the To: header is no different. The mail isn't being sent to you personally, so it shouldn't claim that it is.
(And, yes, it also annoys me to receive paper mail which starts off with "Dear David," but is obviously a form letter.)
-- 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
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 13:17, Dave Sherohman wrote:
To: munging destroys information just as clearly as Reply-To: munging.
I have to disagree that Reply-To: munging destroys information. Here's why -- most MUA's I have used do not by default show the Reply-To: header for either incoming or outgoing mail. Some will let you configure them to show it, some won't. Many (most?) users have never seen a Reply-To: header (or field if you're speaking of entering info into the MUA for sending), so they don't rely on it to give them any meaningful information. If a list administrator wants to preserve the From: header but cause replies to go back to the list, then IMO Reply-To: munging is an appropriate way to cause such behavior. In contrast, I'm leaning toward the opinion that changing the To: header is Bad Juju®.
Faking the To: header is no different. The mail isn't being sent to you personally, so it shouldn't claim that it is.
That point is what tipped my scale.
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
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:00:06PM -0600, Kyle Rhorer wrote:
You're right. Strike that statement from my earlier post. Reply-To: munging affects functionality, it doesn't destroy information, given that most/all implementations of Reply-To: munging will preserve an existing Reply-To: header.
In all honesty, I'm not quite sure what I was thinking when I typed that...
-- 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
- Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com> [2002-10-29 12:30:06 -0800]:
Sorry, I should have specified that I was defining "re-addressing" as precisely that...although I would use the word "rearranging" rather than "standardizing". :)
Hmm, good point. I still don't think it justifies the change, but you're right. You could make the argument that someone may get the list posting and then wonder what happened to the other mail (the one that was sent directly to them, as indicated by the To: field), but I guess that's pretty nitpicky.
I would say the "correct" (notice my use of quotes to denote opinion) way to handle that situation would be to have your MUA identify the messages you're interested in, in the list mailbox's listing...rather than depending on getting a copy to your main inbox; I guess both our points are valid here, though.
Hah! Touche. :)
Yeah, you're right about that. Personally I configure procmail to filter on every single header I can for each list, even though it's overkill, so I'm not really affected by it...I was just making the argument in principle, but it doesn't stand up. (Except maybe for users of Outlook* and other broken MUAs, but I'm already pretty tired of those programs' authors' antics from being on the mutt mailing list for so long...)
That's a good point, and a solid argument for making the feature configurable (as opposed to not having it at all). Sort of like lists that mangle the subject line to help out those same MUAs. *cough* :)
Well, this is kind of a lame way to make a point (I'm referring to what I'm about to say, not what you said), but you could argue that people who would turn on this sort of personalization to bootstrap their MUA's inferior filtering capabilities are not likely to be able to take advantage of the finer points of stuff like index colorizing, so it's a moot point. :p Personally, I think this particular eventuality would be addressed excellently by putting YACV in there to make this particular behaviour separate from the rest of the personalization.
I completely see what you mean by that, but I think it's wrong. :) For most lists, anyway. Maybe I just have an overly pragmatic mind, but I see a real, discernable difference between "the list" and "the members of the list". I don't, and don't want to, think of this mailing list as a set of people, I want to think of it as "the list". Hmm, that doesn't make any sense at all, does it? Well, maybe I can't put my finger on it, but there's something about having my actual address in the To: field that fundamentally changes the way I see a message. Funny how the little things pop up. I understand that the logic to put a person's own address on each mail is more technologically advanced, but I just don't think it should be done that way. Don't get me wrong, I fully support this feature as an option (as I support _any_ feature as an option)...I'm sure there's times when it's appropriate. Just keep it away from me, please. :)
--
John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 10:38 AM, Jay Sekora wrote:
Because it's simply a lie. I got this mail with the headers:
sorry. don't agree.
What that means to me is that Chuq Von Rospach knows me, knows my email address, deliberately decided to send this mail to me specifically,
um, interesting philosophy. I don't buy it. Not for a moment.
I think that filtering method is flawed, personally. I filter all list mail into a folder, using list-id, sender, mailing-list (damn you, yahoogroups), and occasionally a weird header from some funky list server that doesn't come near the standards except in leap years.
that way, I know what's in my personal mailbox is personal mail. Even if it's a reply I got from a posting to a mail list. That allows me to carry on a discussion on a list in a timely manner, even if (for instance) I don't read the mail in the list folder for a while. Like, well, this discussion...
not really. you STILL have List-ID. If it exists, you know it came through the server. If it doesn't, it's a direct copy. you haven't lost the ability to figure this out at all (and, in fact, it worked that way before. Your system, FWIW, fails if, say, I send email to the list and BCC you. Mine handles that appropriately...)
Sorry if this message comes across as heated.
not at all. Now's the right time to put this on the table and hash it out. Better now than AFTER it ships...
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/
No! No! Dead girl, OFF the table! -- Shrek
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
This doesn't work in a few situations:
You are using an email system which removes duplicates (based on the Message-Id header). Microsoft Exchange 2000 is one such system. If Mailman is changing the headers so much perhaps it should stick a new Message-Id on the message though.
You want replies to your messages to show up in your mailman-users folder (or whatever), but colored in a different manner. I do this. If I'm away for a while and want to catch up on a folder I just scan for cyan messages. I don't want public replies to messages that I posted on a mailing list to end up in my private inbox.
At best this should be a user option. I checked, but it isn't there.
The only advantage that I see for putting the user's email address in the To line (vs another header or the footer) is that it slips by the default anti-spam rules on Hotmail and other products that assume bcc'd messages are spam.
alex
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 10:56 AM, alex wetmore wrote:
don't discount the importance of that... Bcc mail is increasingly being banned by sites. I'm not saying they should, but they are.
-- 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.
- Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com> [2002-10-29 10:45:28 -0800]:
"Lie" is kinda an interesting way to put it, but I think we all know what he means. How can you say that readdressing a mail (which is what you're doing here) isn't a "lie" the way he's referring to it? It's in plain black and white.
Well, OK then, how would you differentiate this new behaviour from a hypothetical message I might have sent pre-upgrade that _did_ have your address in the To: and the list in the CC:? Hint: you can't. (Of course, I acknowledge that sending a copy directly to a person who is already subscribed to the list is a bit silly/redundant, but I don't see that that dilutes the point at all. In five seconds I can think of a case where this would happen...I see a mail off the list, I don't know someone is subscribed, so I send them my followup but also CC the list because I think it pertains there also. With this new function, you've just erased anybody's ability to tell the difference between those two situations.) Saying you "don't buy" something that someone has stated is their opinion/feeling is indefensible. :)
When two mails are sent out, I'll get one filtered into my folder for the list, and the other one sent to my main inbox; that's the way the sender intended it, and that's the way I want it. That doesn't happen anymore, because there's actually only one email, since you've included a fake header. You're saying a (copy of an) email has been sent directly to me when it hasn't.
True...but should be unecessary. Besides, filtering into folders is only one application of header matching, as others have pointed out. Colorization of lines (based on whether your exact address is in the headers somewhere) in a message index is another, and List-ID won't help you on that one. :) But really, this is all getting away from the original philosophical point that an address that a message was not sent to should not be faked into the headers.
Break out the asbestos suits! :p
And again, like someone else said, it's not really that bad as long as it's configurable (and even better if it's not the default). BUT, I do/will consider it a step backwards for any lists I'm on to implement. Is there any chance of making a special setting so that all of the personalization options _except_ this one can be applied to an account? I'm going out on a limb here, but I think I may not be the only one who would like to see that. :)
--
John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable)
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 11:33 AM, John Buttery wrote:
we aren't re-addressing. We're standardizing the way the existing addresses are presented.
sure I can. If it went through the list server, it has a List-ID attached. So it's clear which one came from where.
See, I don't agree with that, either. I've explained how I take advantage of this in my filtering to continue discussions I'm involved in without having to paw through all my list mail...
Saying you "don't buy" something that someone has stated is their opinion/feeling is indefensible. :)
yeah, but when a situation is arguably a subjective decision in the first place, sometimes it's all you get.
and if you filter on list-id, that's how you'll get it no matter who does what to the to/cc/bcc. If you DON'T filter on list-id, you depend on the end users doing what you expect them to do. That's a filtering method guaranteed to fail randomly.
filtering list mail based on to/cc is a flawed approach. to argue that we can't break what's broken by definition is a flawed argument. IMHO.
True...but should be unecessary.
but it is, because it's the ONLY reliable filtering tool you have. the others depend on people doing what you consider "right", so they fail when those users don't. If anything, this new header format rationalizes that so decisions by the end users can't break the filtering, if you absolutely MUST use to/from/cc for some reason.
and if you'll notice, I haven't refuted that one. it's a point that needs consideration.
I'd argue whether that's true.
I guess I'm arguing that it's the end of the days of "bulk" mail, and the beginning of the days of "mass" mail. There are significant semantical differences and advantages. To use paper-mail analogies, it's time to move from sending out everything to "Resident", and start adding enough intelligence to the system so that it actually shows up with your name on it.
-- 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.
Forgive me if I'm a little behind on the issues, but this is something I didn't notice until the huge thread erupted...
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 12:30:06PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
I am sending this message with the header
To: Mailman mailing list management users <mailman-users@python.org>
If it arrives with a different address (such as "To: Your Name <you@some.domain.com>"), then it has been re-addressed. This is not standardizing the way the existing addresses are presented because "Your Name <you@some.domain.com>" is not an existing address.
That just tells you whether that specific copy came in via the list. It does not tell you whether a second copy was sent to you directly. To: munging destroys information just as clearly as Reply-To: munging.
filtering list mail based on to/cc is a flawed approach. to argue that we can't break what's broken by definition is a flawed argument. IMHO.
If the filtering on to/cc is being done solely for the sake of determining whether a copy of the message was sent directly to you personally (and not to determine whether the message was received via a mailing list, why is this flawed?
Such as?
Sending paper mail to <current resident's name> instead of to "resident" is a cheap trick used by bulk mail houses to convince people that they're receiving personalized mail instead of form letters. Faking the To: header is no different. The mail isn't being sent to you personally, so it shouldn't claim that it is.
(And, yes, it also annoys me to receive paper mail which starts off with "Dear David," but is obviously a form letter.)
-- 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
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 13:17, Dave Sherohman wrote:
To: munging destroys information just as clearly as Reply-To: munging.
I have to disagree that Reply-To: munging destroys information. Here's why -- most MUA's I have used do not by default show the Reply-To: header for either incoming or outgoing mail. Some will let you configure them to show it, some won't. Many (most?) users have never seen a Reply-To: header (or field if you're speaking of entering info into the MUA for sending), so they don't rely on it to give them any meaningful information. If a list administrator wants to preserve the From: header but cause replies to go back to the list, then IMO Reply-To: munging is an appropriate way to cause such behavior. In contrast, I'm leaning toward the opinion that changing the To: header is Bad Juju®.
Faking the To: header is no different. The mail isn't being sent to you personally, so it shouldn't claim that it is.
That point is what tipped my scale.
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
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:00:06PM -0600, Kyle Rhorer wrote:
You're right. Strike that statement from my earlier post. Reply-To: munging affects functionality, it doesn't destroy information, given that most/all implementations of Reply-To: munging will preserve an existing Reply-To: header.
In all honesty, I'm not quite sure what I was thinking when I typed that...
-- 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
- Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com> [2002-10-29 12:30:06 -0800]:
Sorry, I should have specified that I was defining "re-addressing" as precisely that...although I would use the word "rearranging" rather than "standardizing". :)
Hmm, good point. I still don't think it justifies the change, but you're right. You could make the argument that someone may get the list posting and then wonder what happened to the other mail (the one that was sent directly to them, as indicated by the To: field), but I guess that's pretty nitpicky.
I would say the "correct" (notice my use of quotes to denote opinion) way to handle that situation would be to have your MUA identify the messages you're interested in, in the list mailbox's listing...rather than depending on getting a copy to your main inbox; I guess both our points are valid here, though.
Hah! Touche. :)
Yeah, you're right about that. Personally I configure procmail to filter on every single header I can for each list, even though it's overkill, so I'm not really affected by it...I was just making the argument in principle, but it doesn't stand up. (Except maybe for users of Outlook* and other broken MUAs, but I'm already pretty tired of those programs' authors' antics from being on the mutt mailing list for so long...)
That's a good point, and a solid argument for making the feature configurable (as opposed to not having it at all). Sort of like lists that mangle the subject line to help out those same MUAs. *cough* :)
Well, this is kind of a lame way to make a point (I'm referring to what I'm about to say, not what you said), but you could argue that people who would turn on this sort of personalization to bootstrap their MUA's inferior filtering capabilities are not likely to be able to take advantage of the finer points of stuff like index colorizing, so it's a moot point. :p Personally, I think this particular eventuality would be addressed excellently by putting YACV in there to make this particular behaviour separate from the rest of the personalization.
I completely see what you mean by that, but I think it's wrong. :) For most lists, anyway. Maybe I just have an overly pragmatic mind, but I see a real, discernable difference between "the list" and "the members of the list". I don't, and don't want to, think of this mailing list as a set of people, I want to think of it as "the list". Hmm, that doesn't make any sense at all, does it? Well, maybe I can't put my finger on it, but there's something about having my actual address in the To: field that fundamentally changes the way I see a message. Funny how the little things pop up. I understand that the logic to put a person's own address on each mail is more technologically advanced, but I just don't think it should be done that way. Don't get me wrong, I fully support this feature as an option (as I support _any_ feature as an option)...I'm sure there's times when it's appropriate. Just keep it away from me, please. :)
--
John Buttery (Web page temporarily unavailable)
participants (7)
-
alex wetmore -
Chuq Von Rospach -
Dave Sherohman -
Jay Sekora -
John Buttery -
Kyle Rhorer -
Stonewall Ballard