Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[Paul Jarc]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> Is anyone opposing the following patch?
> 
> 2001-05-03  Florian Weimer  <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
> 
> 	* message.el (message-dont-reply-to-names): Fix documentation.
> 	(message-get-reply-headers): Use Mail-Followup-To only for wide
> 	replies.

I noticed that, and had been meaning to get around to this myself.
Mail-Followup-To should indeed be used only for wide replies.


paul

Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[Alan Shutko]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

> Is anyone opposing the following patch?
> 
> 2001-05-03  Florian Weimer  <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
> 
> 	* message.el (message-dont-reply-to-names): Fix documentation.
> 	(message-get-reply-headers): Use Mail-Followup-To only for wide
> 	replies.

Would that mean that I'd have to stop using F in mailing lists and
switch to S W all the time?  Currently, Mail-Followup-To works with
followups....

-- 
Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org> - In a variety of flavors!
Man and wife make one fool.

Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[Paul Jarc]

Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org> writes:
> Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> > Is anyone opposing the following patch?
> > 
> > 2001-05-03  Florian Weimer  <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
> > 
> > 	* message.el (message-dont-reply-to-names): Fix documentation.
> > 	(message-get-reply-headers): Use Mail-Followup-To only for wide
> > 	replies.
> 
> Would that mean that I'd have to stop using F in mailing lists and
> switch to S W all the time?  Currently, Mail-Followup-To works with
> followups....

I don't think so.  A followup is wide, AIUI.  Mail-Followup-To just
shouldn't be used for "R", as it is now.


paul

Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[Florian Weimer]

Is anyone opposing the following patch?

2001-05-03  Florian Weimer  <fw@deneb.enyo.de>

	* message.el (message-dont-reply-to-names): Fix documentation.
	(message-get-reply-headers): Use Mail-Followup-To only for wide
	replies.

Index: message.el
===================================================================
RCS file: /usr/local/cvsroot/gnus/lisp/message.el,v
retrieving revision 6.77
diff -u -r6.77 message.el
--- message.el	2001/04/12 23:14:50	6.77
+++ message.el	2001/05/03 15:54:50
@@ -714,8 +714,8 @@
 
 (defcustom message-dont-reply-to-names
   (and (boundp 'rmail-dont-reply-to-names) rmail-dont-reply-to-names)
-  "*A regexp specifying names to prune when doing wide replies.
-A value of nil means exclude your own name only."
+  "*A regexp specifying addresses to prune when doing wide replies.
+A value of nil means exclude your own user name only."
   :version "21.1"
   :group 'message
   :type '(choice (const :tag "Yourself" nil)
@@ -3980,6 +3980,7 @@
 	  (message-set-work-buffer)
           (if (and mft
                    message-use-followup-to
+		   wide
                    (or (not (eq message-use-followup-to 'ask))
                        (message-y-or-n-p
 		        (concat "Obey Mail-Followup-To? ") t "\

Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[Florian Weimer]

Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org> writes:

> Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> 
> > Is anyone opposing the following patch?
> > 
> > 2001-05-03  Florian Weimer  <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
> > 
> > 	* message.el (message-dont-reply-to-names): Fix documentation.
> > 	(message-get-reply-headers): Use Mail-Followup-To only for wide
> > 	replies.
> 
> Would that mean that I'd have to stop using F in mailing lists and
> switch to S W all the time?  Currently, Mail-Followup-To works with
> followups....

Followups are wide replies, at least in some sense (news vs. mail).
Does this answer your question?

(However, I've noticed that the Mail-Followup-To: header is rapidly
becoming less and less useful.)

Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[Kai Großjohann]

On 03 May 2001, Florian Weimer wrote:

> (However, I've noticed that the Mail-Followup-To: header is rapidly
> becoming less and less useful.)

Why?

kai
-- 
The passive voice should never be used.

Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[Paul Jarc]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> > > (However, I've noticed that the Mail-Followup-To: header is rapidly
> > > becoming less and less useful.)

Have you read <URL:http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html>?  I don't know
of any other header field, or set of fields, that llows the same
expressive power as Mail-Followup-To, if properly supported.

> For mailing lists, I think Mail-Copies-To: should point to the mailing
> list submission address.

Do you think it should be set by the list, or by posters?  How would a
poster express "I don't want to receive copies of followups", or "I do
want ..." or "I want to receive copies of *all followups in this
thread*, not just followups to this message"?  Mail-Followup-To, if
honored and preserved by other posters' software, allows all these
expressions.


paul

Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[Florian Weimer]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:

> On 03 May 2001, Florian Weimer wrote:
> 
> > (However, I've noticed that the Mail-Followup-To: header is rapidly
> > becoming less and less useful.)
> 
> Why?

For mailing lists, I think Mail-Copies-To: should point to the mailing
list submission address.  However, some commonly used software
accumulates the addresses of earlier contributors in the same thread
in the Mail-Copies-To: header, making it a duplicate of the To: and
Cc: headers.

Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[Jason R. Mastaler]

Another thought about Mail-Followup-To: -- shouldn't the default be to
honor Mail-Followup-To instead of prompting the user as is the case
currently?  Mail-Copies-To is automatically honored by Gnus.

-- 
(TMDA - http://tmda.sourceforge.net/)
(OSI-certified SPAM reduction system)

Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[Paul Jarc]

"Jason R. Mastaler" <jason-dated-989607510.ef865c@mastaler.com> writes:
> Another thought about Mail-Followup-To: -- shouldn't the default be to
> honor Mail-Followup-To instead of prompting the user as is the case
> currently?  Mail-Copies-To is automatically honored by Gnus.

Yes.  Currently it depends on gnus-use-followup-to.  MFT ought to have
its own variable with obey-by-default, but I've never gotten around to
doing that.  Apparently no one else has yet either.  I think a good
deault behavior would be to obey if the MFT address list is the same
as either To+Cc or To+Cc+(Mail-Reply-To/Reply-To/From), and prompt
otherwise.  Comparing lists of addresses would be a bit tedious,
though.


paul

Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[Florian Weimer]

prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:

> Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> > > > (However, I've noticed that the Mail-Followup-To: header is rapidly
> > > > becoming less and less useful.)
> 
> Have you read <URL:http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html>?  I don't know
> of any other header field, or set of fields, that llows the same
> expressive power as Mail-Followup-To, if properly supported.

I don't think it works.  Has DJB written a real specification?

> > For mailing lists, I think Mail-Copies-To: should point to the mailing
> > list submission address.
> 
> Do you think it should be set by the list, or by posters?

I'm not sure, I guess it doesn't work well either way.

Why didn't my message carry a Mail-Followup-To header, but yours did?
This is really strange.

Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[Paul Jarc]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:
> > Have you read <URL:http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html>?  I don't know
> > of any other header field, or set of fields, that llows the same
> > expressive power as Mail-Followup-To, if properly supported.
> 
> I don't think it works.  Has DJB written a real specification?

What's unreal about replyto.html?  How does the behavior it recommends
fail?

> Why didn't my message carry a Mail-Followup-To header, but yours did?

Gnus doesn't generate MFT (yet, anyway).  Mine are generated by
qmail-inject.

When creating a message buffer for a new message, there should be no
automatically-generated MFT field.  Upon sending a message in a
mailing-list group (detected by to-list or to-address group
parameters, or something), Gnus ought to check for MFT supplied by the
user, and if there is none, add one containing all the addresses from
To+Cc.  It'd also be nice to copy Reply-To/From to Mail-Reply-To when
broken-reply-to is set.


paul

Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[Paul Jarc]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> "Jason R. Mastaler" <jason-dated-989607510.ef865c@mastaler.com> writes:
> > Another thought about Mail-Followup-To: -- shouldn't the default be to
> > honor Mail-Followup-To instead of prompting the user as is the case
> > currently?  Mail-Copies-To is automatically honored by Gnus.
> 
> The current behavior is analogous to the treatment of the Followup-To
> header.  In fact, it is controlled by the same variable.

Yes, but that was just a kludge.  It was "good enough" when I first
wrote the MFT stuff, and I just haven't gotten back to it.


paul

Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[ShengHuo ZHU]

prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:

> "Jason R. Mastaler" <jason-dated-989607510.ef865c@mastaler.com> writes:
> > Another thought about Mail-Followup-To: -- shouldn't the default be to
> > honor Mail-Followup-To instead of prompting the user as is the case
> > currently?  Mail-Copies-To is automatically honored by Gnus.
> 
> Yes.  Currently it depends on gnus-use-followup-to.

A correction. It is message-use-followup-to.

> MFT ought to have its own variable with obey-by-default, but I've
> never gotten around to doing that.  Apparently no one else has yet
> either.  I think a good deault behavior would be to obey if the MFT
> address list is the same as either To+Cc or
> To+Cc+(Mail-Reply-To/Reply-To/From), and prompt otherwise.
> Comparing lists of addresses would be a bit tedious, though.

I think the default value should be `use' or `t', instead of `ask'.
If no objection, I'll change it to `use'.

ShengHuo

Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[Paul Jarc]

ShengHuo ZHU <zsh@cs.rochester.edu> writes:
> prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:
> > Yes.  Currently it depends on gnus-use-followup-to.
> 
> A correction. It is message-use-followup-to.

Oops, right.

> I think the default value should be `use' or `t', instead of `ask'.
> If no objection, I'll change it to `use'.

Do you mean changing the default of message-use-followup-to, or
introducing a new variable with that default?  What would be the
behavior for t, since "poster" doesn't mean anything with MFT?


paul

Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[Florian Weimer]

"Jason R. Mastaler" <jason-dated-989607510.ef865c@mastaler.com> writes:

> Another thought about Mail-Followup-To: -- shouldn't the default be to
> honor Mail-Followup-To instead of prompting the user as is the case
> currently?  Mail-Copies-To is automatically honored by Gnus.

The current behavior is analogous to the treatment of the Followup-To
header.  In fact, it is controlled by the same variable.

Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[Josh Huber]

prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:

> When creating a message buffer for a new message, there should be no
> automatically-generated MFT field.  Upon sending a message in a
> mailing-list group (detected by to-list or to-address group
> parameters, or something), Gnus ought to check for MFT supplied by the
> user, and if there is none, add one containing all the addresses from
> To+Cc.  It'd also be nice to copy Reply-To/From to Mail-Reply-To when
> broken-reply-to is set.

This would be very nice.  This is the only thing I've missed coming
from mutt.

-- 
Josh Huber

Re: Mail-Followup-To not only for wide replies considered harmful

[Per Abrahamsen]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

> "Jason R. Mastaler" <jason-dated-989607510.ef865c@mastaler.com> writes:
> 
> > Another thought about Mail-Followup-To: -- shouldn't the default be to
> > honor Mail-Followup-To instead of prompting the user as is the case
> > currently?  Mail-Copies-To is automatically honored by Gnus.
> 
> The current behavior is analogous to the treatment of the Followup-To
> header.  In fact, it is controlled by the same variable.

But I'd like two different variables.  There is a lot more jokesters
on Usenet who think FUT'ing to strange groups is fun.