Given that we're still getting requests on this list for removal/merging/orphaning of packages, could we not simply send an email out to all those who have AUR accounts explaining the fact that we've changed the way things are done since then?
I recognise that this might be viewed as spammy or annoying by those who are already fully aware of this fact, but passive notification on the AUR front page hasn't proved to be fully effective.
Perhaps if there are a lot of AUR accounts who never maintain or own any packages, we could simply send email messages only to those who currently have one or more packages under their wing?
What do you all think?
On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:25:59 +1300, David Phillips wrote:
What do you all think?
As a mailing list user and somebody who has got an AUR website account I'm not annoyed by those requests at the wrong place, but I guess your idea is very good, since it's helpful for those who maintain the AUR and for those who maintain packages it's useful too.
On Dec 6, 2014 5:36 PM, "Ralf Mardorf" info.mardorf@rocketmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:25:59 +1300, David Phillips wrote:
What do you all think?
As a mailing list user and somebody who has got an AUR website account I'm not annoyed by those requests at the wrong place, but I guess your idea is very good, since it's helpful for those who maintain the AUR and for those who maintain packages it's useful too.
-- "Nine sold him a holographic minicam, which films in every direction at once and stores the video on a remote 15-inch floppy disk" - http://theinfosphere.org/For_Your_Eyes_Mainly
+1 to this. While the requests mailed to the list directly seem to have died down a bit, I don't think it'd be spammy since it's a different direction from how these sort of things have been handled in the past.
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 17:44:03 -0500, Brent Saner wrote:
On Dec 6, 2014 5:36 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:25:59 +1300, David Phillips wrote:
What do you all think?
I guess your idea is very good
+1
Perhaps it's better to repeat sending this information at the end or beginning of each month for the next quarter.
I would very much like to get one more email, instead of 2-5 a week.
Regards, Justin Dray E: justin@dray.be M: 0433348284
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Ralf Mardorf info.mardorf@rocketmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 17:44:03 -0500, Brent Saner wrote:
On Dec 6, 2014 5:36 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:25:59 +1300, David Phillips wrote:
What do you all think?
I guess your idea is very good
+1
Perhaps it's better to repeat sending this information at the end or beginning of each month for the next quarter.
On 06/12/14 17:25, David Phillips wrote: [snip]
AUR front page hasn't proved to be fully effective.
Perhaps if there are a lot of AUR accounts who never maintain or own any packages, we could simply send email messages only to those who currently have one or more packages under their wing?
What do you all think?
Seconded. It would also be an opportunity to weed out accounts with dead and bogus email addresses that bounce out. These accounts could be disabled for a fixed amount of time to smoke out their owners and deleted after the predetermined time; packages should be orphaned immediately.
It would also be an opportunity to weed out accounts with dead and bogus email addresses that bounce out. These accounts could be disabled for a fixed amount of time to smoke out their owners and deleted after the predetermined time; packages should be orphaned immediately.
Sounds like a good idea. Who do we go to in order to get something like this done? Can any TU get this done, or what?
On 15/12/2014, "P. A. López-Valencia" vorbote@outlook.com wrote:
On 06/12/14 17:25, David Phillips wrote: [snip]
AUR front page hasn't proved to be fully effective.
Perhaps if there are a lot of AUR accounts who never maintain or own any packages, we could simply send email messages only to those who currently have one or more packages under their wing?
What do you all think?
Seconded. It would also be an opportunity to weed out accounts with dead and bogus email addresses that bounce out. These accounts could be disabled for a fixed amount of time to smoke out their owners and deleted after the predetermined time; packages should be orphaned immediately.
-- Pedro Alejandro López-Valencia http://about.me/palopezv/
Every nation gets the government it deserves. -- Joseph de Maistre
Apologies for the top-post, I still haven't got Gmail to untick the 'include quoted text with reply' box by default.
On 2014-12-16 23:09, David Phillips wrote:
Apologies for the top-post, I still haven't got Gmail to untick the 'include quoted text with reply' box by default.
-- David Phillips GPG Key 0x7BF3D17D0884BF5B Fingerprint 2426 235A 7831 AA2F 56AF 4BC0 7BF3 D17D 0884 BF5B
(sending this off-list)
Rather late and off-topic, but if you're using firefox there are greasemonkey scripts that can solve the top-posting issue for you (by bottom-posting by default) when using gmail.
Cheers,
On 04/02, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
(sending this off-list)
Hate to break it to you, but you did not. ;)
On 2015-02-04 22:15, Johannes Löthberg wrote:
On 04/02, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
(sending this off-list)
Hate to break it to you, but you did not. ;)
-- Sincerely, Johannes Löthberg PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/
I *tried* to reply off list, but I now realize I did not. It seems I can't reply off-list anyway, since the list is altering the Reply-To, making it impossible for me to determine where I should reply to the user.
Can we get this rather scary and dangerous privacy issue fixed?
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Cheers,
Thu, 5 Feb 2015 22:46:44 -0300 Hugo Osvaldo Barrera hugo@barrera.io:
Can we get this rather scary and dangerous privacy issue fixed?
Can we *please* not start the 3001th useless discussion on this topic?
You can't solve it; regardless if reply-to-list or reply-to-sender is the list default, you'll always have users expecting the opposite. I know it's futile wishing for users to abandon the default "reply" button in favor of "reply to list/sender" (or "reply to all", heaven forbid), but I still expect everyone to give his reply (body _and_ headers) a second look before hitting "send". Is that already too much?
But I'm not against a majority vote to change the current default for all archlinux.org lists (having mixed settings would wreak havoc), if it's properly conducted and communicated beforehand via homepage news.
--byte
On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:28:26 +0100, Jens Adam wrote:
But I'm not against a majority vote to change the current default for all archlinux.org lists
I'm completely against dropping "Reply-To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" aur-general@archlinux.org"
Mailing lists without it, allow users to add their "Reply-To", this has a drawback and an advantage and it's easy to value the drawback and disadvantage.
Open mailing lists, were you don't need to be subscribed, shouldn't use "Reply-To". Mailing lists that are only for subscribed members, should use "Reply-To".
2 Cents, Ralf
Mailing lists without it, allow users to add their "Reply-To", this has a drawback and an advantage and it's easy to value the drawback and disadvantage.
^^^ advantage, without "dis" ;)
Open mailing lists, were you don't need to be subscribed, shouldn't use "Reply-To". Mailing lists that are only for subscribed members, should use "Reply-To".
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 22:46:44 -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
I *tried* to reply off list, but I now realize I did not. It seems I can't reply off-list anyway, since the list is altering the Reply-To, making it impossible for me to determine where I should reply to the user.
Can we get this rather scary and dangerous privacy issue fixed?
There are two kinds of MUAs. Some invoke reply to the mailing list by the "reply" and others by the "group reply/all" option. If the MUA invokes the mailing list reply by the "reply" option, it should provide a "reply to sender" option, as e.g. Claws Mail and Sylpheed do. The drawback of this approach is, that if you disabled to receive duplicated mails by the mailman settings, you need to care about the missing mailing list headers. If you use an MUA such as Evolution, that does invoke the mailing list reply by the "group reply/all" option, then "reply" will send a private message and not send to the list.
I suspect your MUA "User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)" can be set up to your need too. If not, consider to use another MUA.
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 10:01:20AM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 22:46:44 -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
I *tried* to reply off list, but I now realize I did not. It seems I can't reply off-list anyway, since the list is altering the Reply-To, making it impossible for me to determine where I should reply to the user.
Can we get this rather scary and dangerous privacy issue fixed?
There are two kinds of MUAs. Some invoke reply to the mailing list by the "reply" and others by the "group reply/all" option. If the MUA invokes the mailing list reply by the "reply" option, it should provide a "reply to sender" option, as e.g. Claws Mail and Sylpheed do. The drawback of this approach is, that if you disabled to receive duplicated mails by the mailman settings, you need to care about the missing mailing list headers. If you use an MUA such as Evolution, that does invoke the mailing list reply by the "group reply/all" option, then "reply" will send a private message and not send to the list.
I suspect your MUA "User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)" can be set up to your need too. If not, consider to use another MUA.
I'm using mutt too. It prompts me whether to reply to the "Reply-To" address. Saying no, mutt will reply to the sender.
I have "set edit_headers=yes" in muttrc, so when I edit the mail, I see the headers, and can edit them :-)
On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 17:58:02 +0800, lilydjwg wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 10:01:20AM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I suspect your MUA "User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)" can be set up to your need too. If not, consider to use another MUA.
I'm using mutt too. It prompts me whether to reply to the "Reply-To" address. Saying no, mutt will reply to the sender.
IOW it's not a mutt issue, just an user error. And for mailing-list reply you have got an additional option?
Claws has got a nice feature. If there's a List-Post header and you use reply (set up to invoke reply to mailing list) it will reply to the mailing list. Assumed there should be a a List-Post header and Reply-To header and you use reply (set up to invoke reply to mailing list), it does reply to the mailing list and assumed the Reply-To shouldn't be the mailing list too, but a private address, then Claws replies to the mailing list and to this private address. This is useful, for mailing lists, that are open for people who aren't subscribed. OTOH I like that Evolution invokes mailing list relies by the reply to group/all option, so if people cause duplicated messages, because they reply to all and mailman is set up to not send duplicated messages, so that the list headers are missing, it automatically replies to all.
There seems to be no norm, so a claim that some MUAs are sane and others do it wrong, seems to be nonsense.
:)
Since AUR general isn't an open mailing list, IMO it's good that it overwrites the Rely-To, it at least fitsgood to the MUA I'm using at the moment.
* Ralf Mardorf info.mardorf@rocketmail.com (Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:17:20 +0100):
Claws has got a nice feature. If there's a List-Post header and you use reply (set up to invoke reply to mailing list) it will reply to the mailing list. […]
It's much easier with Claws to only send messages to the original sender when on a mailing list: just press the "Sender" button and only the original sender is put in the To: field.
And no, the mailing lists shouldn't change their current behaviour, IMHO: most of the time I want to reply to the mailing list, not only to the original sender.
Regards, Marcel
On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 15:09 +0100, Marcel Korpel wrote:
- Ralf Mardorf info.mardorf@rocketmail.com (Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:17:20
+0100):
Claws has got a nice feature. If there's a List-Post header and you use reply (set up to invoke reply to mailing list) it will reply to the mailing list. […]
It's much easier with Claws to only send messages to the original sender when on a mailing list: just press the "Sender" button and only the original sender is put in the To: field.
I guess I pointed that out too ;) and I pointed out one advantage the way Claws handles mailing-lists. But it also has a disadvantage, I also like the Evolution style to handle mailing list and private replies.
And no, the mailing lists shouldn't change their current behaviour, IMHO: most of the time I want to reply to the mailing list, not only to the original sender.
As already pointed out earlier, I agree, full ACK. But too funny, the mailing lists for Evolution and Claws are _not_ open mailing lists and they do not use the Reply-To for their lists, even while they are able to handle it and while it is an advantage to provide different behaviours for open mailing lists and mailing lists where users need to be subscribed members.
Open mailing list IMO shouldn't use Reply-To and mailing lists that are only for subscribers, should use Reply-To. Then at least Claws is able to reply to the mailing list only, for mailing lists where people need to be subscribed, but for an open mailing list the "list reply" automagically adds the OP to the recipients.
Hi all, I'd like to chip in here and let everyone know that I had a reply off-list from another ML watcher a while back where (s)he recommended greasemonkey and I ended up solving the problem.
IIRC, I forwarded the ensuing thread to the ML.
If this topic requires further discussion, could I recommend changing the subject line?
On 2015-02-06 15:09, Marcel Korpel wrote:
- Ralf Mardorf info.mardorf@rocketmail.com (Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:17:20
+0100):
Claws has got a nice feature. If there's a List-Post header and you use reply (set up to invoke reply to mailing list) it will reply to the mailing list. […]
It's much easier with Claws to only send messages to the original sender when on a mailing list: just press the "Sender" button and only the original sender is put in the To: field.
And no, the mailing lists shouldn't change their current behaviour, IMHO: most of the time I want to reply to the mailing list, not only to the original sender.
So you should click "Reply to list", or "Reply to all". Or whatever key is appropiate.
Also, most mailing lists *don't* alter the Reply-To, because it leads to private emails being leaked, since altering this header makes MUAs behave in erroneous ways (the "Reply" button does the same as the "Reply to all". See the link in my original message for all the negative implications.
Regards, Marcel
On 2015-02-06 10:01, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 22:46:44 -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
I *tried* to reply off list, but I now realize I did not. It seems I can't reply off-list anyway, since the list is altering the Reply-To, making it impossible for me to determine where I should reply to the user.
Can we get this rather scary and dangerous privacy issue fixed?
There are two kinds of MUAs. Some invoke reply to the mailing list by the "reply" and others by the "group reply/all" option. If the MUA invokes the mailing list reply by the "reply" option, it should provide a "reply to sender" option, as e.g. Claws Mail and Sylpheed do. The drawback of this approach is, that if you disabled to receive duplicated mails by the mailman settings, you need to care about the missing mailing list headers. If you use an MUA such as Evolution, that does invoke the mailing list reply by the "group reply/all" option, then "reply" will send a private message and not send to the list.
I suspect your MUA "User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)" can be set up to your need too. If not, consider to use another MUA.
No client will help, because the mailing list erases the original Reply-To header, so it's impossible for the MUA to determine it.
Also, any MUA that has a "reply to author" button (as opposed to "Reply to list") will reply to list because, again, reply-to is overwritten.
Finally, according to rfc2822 (emphasis mine):
The originator fields also provide the information required when replying to a message. When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which the *author of the message* suggests that replies be sent.
So a third party should not be altering this field, since it misrepresents the authors's suggestion.
No client will help, because the mailing list erases the original Reply-To header, so it's impossible for the MUA to determine it.
Some people, e.g. I, even don't set up a Reply-To.
That's the from the list's headers of your mail:
"Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 08:14:59 -0300
From: Hugo Osvaldo Barrera hugo@barrera.io
To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" aur-general@archlinux.org
Subject: Re: [aur-general] Email Notifications of new AUR orphaning/deletion/merging method
Reply-To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" aur-general@archlinux.org
Sender: "aur-general" aur-general-bounces@archlinux.org"
If I push Claws' "Sender" button, the mail only would be send to Hugo Osvaldo Barrera hugo@barrera.io. If I use Claws' "Reply" button, the mail only is send to AUR general.
If I push Evolution's group reply button, the mail is only send to the list. If I push Evolution's reply button, Evolution asks me, if I want to reply to you or to Arch general.
In addition, both MUAs allow to reply to all.
So I at least have got two MUAs installed that are able to handle this "issue".
Regards, Ralf
On 2015-02-06 12:30, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
No client will help, because the mailing list erases the original Reply-To header, so it's impossible for the MUA to determine it.
Some people, e.g. I, even don't set up a Reply-To.
That's the from the list's headers of your mail:
"Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 08:14:59 -0300
From: Hugo Osvaldo Barrera hugo@barrera.io
To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" aur-general@archlinux.org
Subject: Re: [aur-general] Email Notifications of new AUR orphaning/deletion/merging method
Reply-To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" aur-general@archlinux.org
Sender: "aur-general" aur-general-bounces@archlinux.org"
If I push Claws' "Sender" button, the mail only would be send to Hugo Osvaldo Barrera hugo@barrera.io. If I use Claws' "Reply" button, the mail only is send to AUR general.
If I push Evolution's group reply button, the mail is only send to the list. If I push Evolution's reply button, Evolution asks me, if I want to reply to you or to Arch general.
Evolution can try to *guess* where to send the reply, but the reply address that the author may have included has been purged forever and is irrecoverable by your MUA.
Since there's already a Reply-to-all button, I continue to see the purpose of dangerously mungling the user's emails. It's a huge privacy hole.
In addition, both MUAs allow to reply to all.
So I at least have got two MUAs installed that are able to handle this "issue".
Regards, Ralf
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org