From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 1608a259 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 18:49:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 01F89A1854; Sun, 24 Jun 2018 04:49:08 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FD949EE0C; Sun, 24 Jun 2018 04:48:41 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=tnetconsulting.net header.i=@tnetconsulting.net header.b=j7OJAm3d; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 444F29EE0C; Sun, 24 Jun 2018 04:48:38 +1000 (AEST) Received: from tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net [45.33.28.24]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 762F99EDE9 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2018 04:48:37 +1000 (AEST) Received: from REDACTED (drscriptt-2-pt.tunnel.tserv1.den1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:39:62a:0:0:0:2]) (authenticated bits=0) by tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTPSA id w5NImZGu021595 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 13:48:36 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=tnetconsulting.net; s=2015; t=1529779716; bh=2jbaud8YBfa/EL9kKbssN+MDjASRCqOxTEhv6bZzNXY=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent: MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Language: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Content-Disposition:Content-Language: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Date:From:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:MIME-Version:References:Reply-To:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Sender:Subject:To:User-Agent; b=j7OJAm3dZfCCNH/g9iKVEJ78BHCjd+HMqzpMlp2GZPs6+WXV/HZMLTapoz5u+aHnF xGwbwVBnQcTBN7JWy3XpRtLGYRDd7yJJ5kIlXgXq3DExQ/CRdpDS22Kv1fexaemHHN V9KfmqRAFrXRCXd0xtbZjWGUv5w4FUUEoH4ssGos= To: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org References: <20180621234706.GA23316@minnie.tuhs.org> <20180622142846.GS21272@mcvoy.com> <20180622145402.GT21272@mcvoy.com> <20180622151751.BEK9i%steffen@sdaoden.eu> <20180622192505.mfig_%steffen@sdaoden.eu> <89e5ae21-ccc0-5c84-837b-120a1a7d9e26@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <20180623144959.M9byU%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Organization: TNet Consulting Message-ID: Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 12:49:36 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180623144959.M9byU%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [TUHS] off-topic list X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Grant Taylor via TUHS Reply-To: Grant Taylor Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On 06/23/2018 08:49 AM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: > Hello. Hi, > Oh, I do not know: i have never used a graphical MUA, only pine, then > mutt, and now, while anytime before now and then anyway, BSD Mail. I agree that text mode MUAs from before the turn of the century do have a LOT more functionality than most GUI MUAs that came after that point in time. Thankfully we are free to use what ever MUA we want to. :-) > they i think misinterpreted RFC 2231 to only allow MIME paramaters to be > split in ten sections. I've frequently found things that MUAs (and other applications) don't do properly. That's when it becomes a learning game to see what subset of the defined standard was implemented incorrectly and deciding if I want to work around it or not. > Graphical user interfaces are a difficult abstraction, or tedious to use. > I have to use a graphical browser, and it is always terrible to enable > Cookies for a site. Cookies are their own problem as of late. All the "We use cookies............." warnings that we now seem to have to accept get really annoying. I want a cookie, or more likely a header, that says "I accept (first party) cookies." as a signal to not pester me. > For my thing i hope we will at some future day be so resilient that > users can let go the nmh mailer without loosing any freedom. Why do you have to let go of one tool? Why can't you use a suite of tools that collectively do what you want? > I mean, user interfaces are really a pain, and i think this will not > go away until we come to that brain implant which i have no doubt will > arrive some day, and then things may happen with a think. Things like > emacs or Acme i can understand, and the latter is even Unix like in the > way it works. You can keep the brain implant. I have a desire to not have one. > Interesting that most old a.k.a. established Unix people give up that > Unix freedom of everything-is-a-file, that was there for email access via > nupas -- the way i have seen it in Plan9 (i never ran a research Unix), > at least -- in favour of a restrictive graphical user interface! Why do you have to give up one tool to start using a different tool? I personally use Thunderbird as my primary MUA but weekly use mutt against the same mailbox w/ data going back 10+ years. I extensively use Procmail to file messages into the proper folders. I recently wrote a script that checks (copies of) messages that are being written to folders to move a message with that Message-ID from the Inbox to the Trash. (The point being to remove copies that I got via To: or CC: when I get a copy from the mailing list.) It seems to be like I'm doing things that are far beyond what Thunderbird can do by leveraging other tools to do things for me. I also have a handful devices checking the same mailbox. > No, we use the same threading algorithm that Zawinski described ([1], > "the threading algorithm that was used in Netscape Mail and News 2.0 > and 3.0"). I meant, in a threaded display, successive follow-up messages > which belong to the same thread will not reiterate the Subject:, because > it is the same one as before, and that is irritating. > > [1] http://www.jwz.org/doc/threading.html I *LOVE* threaded views. I've been using threaded view for longer than I can remember. I can't fathom not using threaded view. I believe I mistook your statement to mean that you wanted to thread based on Subject: header, not the In-Reply-To: or References: header. >>> And you seem to be using DMARC, which irritates the list-reply mechanism >>> of at least my MUA. >> >> Yes I do use DMARC as well as DKIM and SPF (w/ -all). I don't see how >> me using that causes problems with "list-reply". >> >> My working understanding is that "list-reply" should reply to the list's >> posting address in the List-Post: header. >> >> List-Post: >> >> What am I missing or not understanding? > > That is not how it works for the MUAs i know. It is an interesting idea. > And in fact it is used during the "mailing-list address-massage" > if possible. But one must or should differentiate in between a > subscribed list and a non-subscribed list, for example. This does > not work without additional configuration (e.g., we have `mlist' and > `mlsubscribe' commands to make known mailing-lists to the machine), > though List-Post: we use for automatic configuration (as via `mlist'). > > And all in all this is a complicated topic (there are Mail-Followup-To: > and Reply-To:, for example), and before you say "But what i want is a > list reply!", yes, of course you are right. But. For my thing i hope > i have found a sensible way through this, and initially also one that > does not deter users of console MUA number one (mutt). How does my use of DMARC irritate the list-reply mechanism of your MUA? DMARC is completely transparent to message contents. Sure, DKIM adds headers with a signature. But I don't see anything about DKIM's use that has any impact on how any MUA handles a message. Or are you referring to the fact that some mailing lists modify the From: header to be DMARC compliant? Please elaborate on what you mean by "DMARC irritate the list-reply mechanism of your MUA". -- Grant. . . . unix || die