I do have a second gmail just for checking my own posts! The thing is this is an informal list that I setup as a favor for a small organization. A number of the list members have gmail so I'm not concerned about this for me but for the subscribers. I'm the list admin so I want to make the experience as pleasant as possible for my subscribers. Unfortunately, it's probably not realistic for people to drop their gmail accounts.

You guys are saying that I could contact Google and actually have some influence? Have a lot of other people brought up the issue with them?

Neil

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:28 PM, jdd jdanield@free.fr wrote:

Le 11/04/2013 08:23, Mark Sapiro a écrit :

You could try adding your voice to those who've already communicated

...

with Google about this, but I suspect they think they're doing the right thing and aren't listening.

it's probably possible to open a second gmail account (I know it's sometime annoyng) and check the list there :-(

jdd

-- http://www.dodin.org ------------------------------**------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/**mailman/listinfo/mailman-usershttp://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/** mailman-users%40python.org/http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/**mailman/options/mailman-users/** nta345%40gmail.comhttp://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/nta345%40gmail.com

Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:

I do have a second gmail just for checking my own posts! The thing is this is an informal list that I setup as a favor for a small organization. A number of the list members have gmail so I'm not concerned about this for me but for the subscribers. I'm the list admin so I want to make the experience as pleasant as possible for my subscribers. Unfortunately, it's probably not realistic for people to drop their gmail accounts.

Are you saying you don't receive the post at your second gmail account either? If so, that is a different issue than the one in the FAQ we've been referring to. See the FAQ at http://wiki.list.org/x/A4E9.

-- Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

I think he is saying that his mailing list subscribers subscribed to gmail do not receive a copy of they own mail.

fir this we do not have any solution :-)

The solution, or workaround I would say, is to change the Message-ID. Possibly, a milter could do this on the way in on the Mailman host. Maybe add a fixed string to what's already there.

However this might have some impact on non Gmail users that does not come to mind immediately, so I am NOT saying to do this.

Joseph Brennan Columbia University Information Technology

William Bagwell writes:

As long as it defaults off and is user selectable I think this would be a nice feature.

No, by definition it's a nasty feature, as it involves nonconformance to RFC 5322.

Suggested similar in the past... It will break threading for those of us who want full Usenet style indented threading. Doubt that those who read mail in a web browser or read and delete will notice.

They will if they're CC'd and try to search archives by Message-ID, or if they have a deduplicator running locally.

William Bagwell writes:

So if a list adds a footer to the body of a message (many do) then that implies that the Message-ID /should/ be changed.

No. As the section you quoted later shows, that is a "syntactic difference" and clearly *not* a reason for changing the Message-ID.

Obviously Mailman does not want to break threading for no good reason. However fighting Gmail's annoying feature with a less annoying kludge is a good enough reason in my book.

I didn't say that individual site managers couldn't do this. I think it's a bad idea for Mailman to provide the feature. I'll probably lose, just like we've lost on Reply-To munging. Note that it's a 10-line or so Handler, which you place near the CookHeaders Handler.

I realize that having Mailman provide the option is the most convenient way to handle the issue, and if individual senders consider that the message in their Sent folder, the copy that they receive via self-cc, and the copy they receive via the list are different, then they are arguably within the RFC to have the Message-IDs changed. I think that's a misinterpretation of the RFC, but I doubt even the RFC authors have thought carefully about Gmail's perverse behavior in this context.

Note that there are already ways for senders to handle the issue. For example, have Mailman ACK your posts, which tells you Mailman has received and distributed the post. Accept that sometimes you're boring and nobody replies -- if they do, Gmail does display your sent posts as part of the "conversation", which should be fine.

Of course, this is a little painful for the sender. But that's as it should be, since "We know you DO have a choice of airlines, and we thank you for traveling with United today." If you don't like the inflight meal, pay for business class. Get another MUA.

If the sender ticks the box telling Mailman to change the Message-ID then they get to take the heat.

No, the sender gets exactly what she wants, and is very unlikely to take any heat. Mailman will get to take the heat when their non-list correspondents complain, usually directly to list owners rather than to senders, and occasionally to Mailman-Users. You understand the consequences of that choice, but in my experience most users won't, and will impose problems on third parties without hesitation.

This feature, like Reply-To munging, is an invitation to smoking in the elevators.

Other settings have brief descriptions / warnings so a sentence warning about breaking threading

It doesn't break threading, except for the sender (that's exactly what they want), and Cc/Bcc-only recipients (who don't deserve this). In fact, according to your argument claiming the feature conforms to RFC, it doesn't break threading at all, since only the message distributed via the list is part of the list thread. The other message generated by the proposed feature is in a separate subthread.

and the other issues you raise would not be out of place.

"If you enable this feature without complaining vigorously and periodically to Gmail, then you are a selfish antisocial wretch" would do in my book. ;-)

An alternative to telling them they're being selfish would be to automatically enable ACK on people who enable Message-ID munging to remind them of the trouble they may be imposing on others, and give them an incentive to stop it.

Yet another alternative would be to reject list posts that contain CCs. Then *all* problems are restricted to the sender and Bcc recipients (but they're unusual as far as I know), because nobody else ever sees the original Message-ID.