You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2009/01/02 15:12:28 UTC
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
>
> to headeradd for cvs@httpd, overriding the normal To:
> cvs@httpd.apache.org. That should prevent Reply-All from picking up
> the commit list, since there won't be anything in the To: or CC:
> fields for it to use.
Last I checked, thunderbird reply-all does cc undisclosed-recipients.
Very irritating given how we configured the apmail reply-to-all's.
So I don't think it adds much but it makes the mailstream more
difficult to read. But I gave it a little thought while travelling
and haven't come up with good answers. Since I really don't mind the
inevitable bounce when I reply-to-all, personally I don't care that
it's fixed.
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 02.01.2009 17:58, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: Rainer Jung<ra...@kippdata.de>
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 11:43:44 AM
>> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>>
>> On 02.01.2009 15:57, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>> From: Joe Schaefer
>>>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:42:20 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>>> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr."
>>>>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:37:58 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr."
>>>>>>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:12:28 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>>>>>>> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to headeradd for cvs@httpd, overriding the normal To:
>>>>>>>> cvs@httpd.apache.org. That should prevent Reply-All from picking up
>>>>>>>> the commit list, since there won't be anything in the To: or CC:
>>>>>>>> fields for it to use.
>>>>>>> Last I checked, thunderbird reply-all does cc undisclosed-recipients.
>>>>>>> Very irritating given how we configured the apmail reply-to-all's.
>>>>>> Are you sure? AIUI the list is now configured to behave in the
>>>>>> same way that ezmlm deals with moderation requests.
>>>>> Correction, the exact header used for the apr moderation queue is;
>>>>>
>>>>> To: Recipient list not shown: ;
>>>>>
>>>>> so not the same thing as "undisclosed-recipients:"
>>>> Updated.
>>> FWIW, RFC-2822 says the text shouldn't matter, as both headers constitute
>>> empty groups (albeit with different names).
>> I tried with Thunderbird 3.0b1. It copies
>>
>> Recipient list not shown: ;
>>
>> as well as
>>
>> undisclosed-recipients:;
>>
>> to CC when replying to all. When actually sending the message a popup
>> occurs, that informs the user, that the address needs to be corrected
>> because it is invalid. You can't send before changing or removing the
>> address.
>
> So, is that better or worse than getting a bounce message?
I would say it's better, because you are aware of the problem before
sending. But that's probably very subjective.
The problem with Thunderbird is known:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=450497
and maybe
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83521
but not yet fixed.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 11:43:23AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Considering mutt, Gmail, and Thunderbird all include cvs@httpd in the
> replies when you do 'reply-all', I have no clue what you're talking
> about. Is there any MUA that doesn't include cvs@httpd in the CC line
> when you hit 'reply-all'? -- justin
ah, so you're the broken thing in this case ;) reply alone works just
fine in a client like mutt that respects reply-to.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 2:43:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Mads Toftum wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 10:52:49AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >> I don't want crap every time I hit reply either. Remembering every
> >> time to cut the address or living with the blowback is even more
> >> unacceptable. -- justin
> >
> > File a bug with whomever makes your mail client then. It's worked fine
> > for ages.
>
> Considering mutt, Gmail, and Thunderbird all include cvs@httpd in the
> replies when you do 'reply-all', I have no clue what you're talking
> about. Is there any MUA that doesn't include cvs@httpd in the CC line
> when you hit 'reply-all'? -- justin
I doubt it.
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 10:52:49AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> I don't want crap every time I hit reply either. Remembering every
>> time to cut the address or living with the blowback is even more
>> unacceptable. -- justin
>
> File a bug with whomever makes your mail client then. It's worked fine
> for ages.
Considering mutt, Gmail, and Thunderbird all include cvs@httpd in the
replies when you do 'reply-all', I have no clue what you're talking
about. Is there any MUA that doesn't include cvs@httpd in the CC line
when you hit 'reply-all'? -- justin
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 10:52:49AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I don't want crap every time I hit reply either. Remembering every
> time to cut the address or living with the blowback is even more
> unacceptable. -- justin
File a bug with whomever makes your mail client then. It's worked fine
for ages.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> I for one don't want the duplicate messages; reply-to says dev@ and that is
> where patches for discussion should be discussed. Re: Crap doesn't belong
> on a commits notification list.
I don't want crap every time I hit reply either. Remembering every
time to cut the address or living with the blowback is even more
unacceptable. -- justin
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Maxime Petazzoni <ma...@bulix.org>.
* Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk> [2009-01-02 19:06:21]:
> Yeah, it broke my filtering. I much prefer the keeping the To: rather
> than adding yet another clumsy workaround for gmail oddities.
+1 on this, please keep the To: header.
- Maxime
--
Maxime Petazzoni <http://www.bulix.org>
+1 (650) 390-7483
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:00:15PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I'd prefer we don't throw away the to: header, it will make filtering
> and sorting emails more difficult for some folks who lack any-header
> rich regex filtering features.
Yeah, it broke my filtering. I much prefer the keeping the To: rather
than adding yet another clumsy workaround for gmail oddities.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Nice. How do people actually handle moderation at the ASF then?
>> You're *supposed* to be using Reply-All when you want to accept
>> a post. Are none of these clients out there ezmlm-compatible?
>
> Gmail does the same thing in my last set of moderation emails (the
> last list I moderated got deleted last month). Reply-all yields
> -accept, not found, -allow.
>
> I don't *recall* that being the behavior before with Gmail, but it
> seems that's what it does now... -- justin
I've simply lived with the bother of removing the offending address,
or forgetting and just throwing away the automatic reply (from the
mail transport for unknown-recipients or from httpd against cvs@).
I'd prefer we don't throw away the to: header, it will make filtering
and sorting emails more difficult for some folks who lack any-header
rich regex filtering features.
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 11:49:04AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> No, correct filters should be keying off List-Post/List-Id.
>
> File a bug with whomever makes your mail client then. It's worked
> fine for ages.
>
Except I can easily filter on those, but I haven't had the need to until
someone went and broke what's been there for ages.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Andre and Roy are the only ones signed up for moderation of cvs@httpd.
>> I think the people who want it to go back to being a moderated list
>> should first step up and offer to moderate it before we revert the
>> config.
>
> Well, it doesn't have to be moderated to have an -allow list. You can
> get ezmlm to accept the addresses w/o having human moderators - we
> already have the custom accept for @apache.org senders... -- justin
I for one don't want the duplicate messages; reply-to says dev@ and that is
where patches for discussion should be discussed. Re: Crap doesn't belong
on a commits notification list.
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Andre and Roy are the only ones signed up for moderation of cvs@httpd.
> I think the people who want it to go back to being a moderated list
> should first step up and offer to moderate it before we revert the
> config.
Well, it doesn't have to be moderated to have an -allow list. You can
get ezmlm to accept the addresses w/o having human moderators - we
already have the custom accept for @apache.org senders... -- justin
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> BTW, if you maintain that the list config is immutable, then my
>> suggestion would be to shut down cvs@ and route commits to dev@. This
>> way we don't place unnecessary barriers to discussions around commits.
>> If folks can't live with the commit traffic, they shouldn't be on
>> dev@ in the first place... -- justin
>
> That makes it impossible to find discussion related to specific
> pieces of code by searching the archives of the discussion list.
> No thanks. As I said, if you don't like the bounces, then the
> commits configuration can be set to black-hole misdirected messages
> that have dev@httpd on the to/cc list. That way, none of us have
> to delete them twice.
1) Bounces are lame. Personally, since this irks, I simply choose to solve
this issue by not repling to cvs@ posts b/c I know it happens and its annoying.
2) I'm involved in _several_ communities, as most of us here are. Both
inside and outside the ASF. The Rule as documented on at least 50% of them is
to always Reply-To-All so that non-subscribes that 1-off post get replies.
3) CVS/DEV at lists serve a purpose. Many people choose digest, or RSS, or
god knows what for cvs@. Its good for that to be commits only.
4) See # 3 above; that said, in other projects, though I don't seem to mind it
there, the reply-to-alls do go through to the cvs@/commits@ lists.
Now, I don't care where we end up too much if at all, but bounces must go, its
just as bad to delete a bounce as it is a dup. Not to mention the bounces
come to my INBOX rather then a folder.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net
Director IT - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com
Contractor - PositiveEnergyUSA http://positiveenergyusa.com
ASF Member - Apache Software Foundation http://apache.org
FreeBSD Committer - FreeBSD Foundation http://freebsd.org
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jan 2, 2009, at 8:04 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com>
> wrote:
>> I am completely uninterested in "fixing" the config just because some
>> person reflexively does a reply-all and then doesn't edit their own
>> destination addresses. There is nothing to fix here. A bounce is
>> what
>> they are supposed to receive to keep the discussion on dev.
>
> It is not only one person who is running up against this. Instead of
> unilaterally stating that there is nothing to fix, I asked first to
> get a consensus of folks on-list - I never asked Joe to activate any
> changes (as I didn't think we had a consensus yet) - he did so on his
> own volition.
>
> I believe that asking folks to change their sending address, or live
> with bounces, or remembering to remove addresses every time is busy
> work for no real purpose. It creates an additional barrier to
> commenting and should be avoided. We have software that should
> conform to what we desire - we shouldn't need to work around broken
> configs.
It isn't busy work to ask that people who always do a reply-all,
which in my opinion is annoying as hell for community lists, should
do the extra work of trimming the list of addresses to those that
they actually intend. It will save them from some embarrassment,
eventually, if they get in the habit of sending mail only where
it is wanted.
The whole reason we have reply-to munging is because we don't want
to receive the same damn email to several lists and our personal
addresses. We want responses to go to one and only one place.
It is intentional and has been our policy since the very first
flames on new-httpd. That whole nonsense about "reply-to being evil"
was written by folks who don't need to delete a thousand messages a
day just to keep up with their work.
> BTW, if you maintain that the list config is immutable, then my
> suggestion would be to shut down cvs@ and route commits to dev@. This
> way we don't place unnecessary barriers to discussions around commits.
> If folks can't live with the commit traffic, they shouldn't be on
> dev@ in the first place... -- justin
That makes it impossible to find discussion related to specific
pieces of code by searching the archives of the discussion list.
No thanks. As I said, if you don't like the bounces, then the
commits configuration can be set to black-hole misdirected messages
that have dev@httpd on the to/cc list. That way, none of us have
to delete them twice.
....Roy
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> I am completely uninterested in "fixing" the config just because some
> person reflexively does a reply-all and then doesn't edit their own
> destination addresses. There is nothing to fix here. A bounce is what
> they are supposed to receive to keep the discussion on dev.
It is not only one person who is running up against this. Instead of
unilaterally stating that there is nothing to fix, I asked first to
get a consensus of folks on-list - I never asked Joe to activate any
changes (as I didn't think we had a consensus yet) - he did so on his
own volition.
I believe that asking folks to change their sending address, or live
with bounces, or remembering to remove addresses every time is busy
work for no real purpose. It creates an additional barrier to
commenting and should be avoided. We have software that should
conform to what we desire - we shouldn't need to work around broken
configs.
BTW, if you maintain that the list config is immutable, then my
suggestion would be to shut down cvs@ and route commits to dev@. This
way we don't place unnecessary barriers to discussions around commits.
If folks can't live with the commit traffic, they shouldn't be on
dev@ in the first place... -- justin
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com>
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 8:08:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>
> On Jan 2, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> From: Justin Erenkrantz
> >> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 1:28:27 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>> Shrug, I can try completely removing the To: header, but I'm fairly
> >>> certain that some MTA's will add one back (and a missing To: header
> >>> will trigger anti-spam). Other than that, it's pick your poison
> >>> time, since no universal solution seems at hand.
> >>
> >> To: dev@httpd would likely be mis-leading...how about re-enabling
> >> -allow/-subscribe lists so that folks who are subscribed don't get the
> >> bounce? Or? -- justin
> >
> > Andre and Roy are the only ones signed up for moderation of cvs@httpd.
> > I think the people who want it to go back to being a moderated list
> > should first step up and offer to moderate it before we revert the
> > config.
>
> I am completely uninterested in "fixing" the config just because some
> person reflexively does a reply-all and then doesn't edit their own
> destination addresses. There is nothing to fix here. A bounce is what
> they are supposed to receive to keep the discussion on dev.
>
As I mentioned on infra@ the editor config for cvs@httpd is currently a hack.
Shall I restore it to the original, supported config?
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jan 2, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> From: Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 1:28:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> Shrug, I can try completely removing the To: header, but I'm fairly
>>> certain that some MTA's will add one back (and a missing To: header
>>> will trigger anti-spam). Other than that, it's pick your poison
>>> time, since no universal solution seems at hand.
>>
>> To: dev@httpd would likely be mis-leading...how about re-enabling
>> -allow/-subscribe lists so that folks who are subscribed don't get
>> the
>> bounce? Or? -- justin
>
> Andre and Roy are the only ones signed up for moderation of cvs@httpd.
> I think the people who want it to go back to being a moderated list
> should first step up and offer to moderate it before we revert the
> config.
I am completely uninterested in "fixing" the config just because some
person reflexively does a reply-all and then doesn't edit their own
destination addresses. There is nothing to fix here. A bounce is what
they are supposed to receive to keep the discussion on dev.
....Roy
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 1:28:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Shrug, I can try completely removing the To: header, but I'm fairly
> > certain that some MTA's will add one back (and a missing To: header
> > will trigger anti-spam). Other than that, it's pick your poison
> > time, since no universal solution seems at hand.
>
> To: dev@httpd would likely be mis-leading...how about re-enabling
> -allow/-subscribe lists so that folks who are subscribed don't get the
> bounce? Or? -- justin
Andre and Roy are the only ones signed up for moderation of cvs@httpd.
I think the people who want it to go back to being a moderated list
should first step up and offer to moderate it before we revert the
config.
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Shrug, I can try completely removing the To: header, but I'm fairly
> certain that some MTA's will add one back (and a missing To: header
> will trigger anti-spam). Other than that, it's pick your poison
> time, since no universal solution seems at hand.
To: dev@httpd would likely be mis-leading...how about re-enabling
-allow/-subscribe lists so that folks who are subscribed don't get the
bounce? Or? -- justin
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk> wrote:
>> seems to me that this will be almost as broken as the use of
>> undisclosed. you're still removing what was used to filter on. Existing
>> filters are still broken.
>
> No, correct filters should be keying off List-Post/List-Id.
Dude, that's fine for you. I've suffered with email clients that have no
such option. Please don't enforce your choice of mail clients on every
subscriber :(
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk> wrote:
> seems to me that this will be almost as broken as the use of
> undisclosed. you're still removing what was used to filter on. Existing
> filters are still broken.
No, correct filters should be keying off List-Post/List-Id.
File a bug with whomever makes your mail client then. It's worked
fine for ages.
*grin* -- justin
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 11:01:18AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> nobody@ sounds fine as long as it doesn't blow up too many people's filters.
>
seems to me that this will be almost as broken as the use of
undisclosed. you're still removing what was used to filter on. Existing
filters are still broken.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> nobody@apache.org routes to the bit-bucket, so that would work for the To:
> header. That's what I would recommend doing at this point, although I've
> just implemented Justin's recommended config and will stop there until
> the list comes to a decision.
nobody@ sounds fine as long as it doesn't blow up too many people's filters.
My filters are all based on List-Id/List-Post, so that should be
okay...dev@svn just went through that whole debacle a few months ago
as CollabNet did a migration that removed List-Id/List-Post from all
of their list headers...*grin* -- justin
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 3:06:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >
> >
> > nobody@apache.org routes to the bit-bucket, so that would work for the To:
> > header. That's what I would recommend doing at this point, although I've
> > just implemented Justin's recommended config and will stop there until
> > the list comes to a decision.
> >
>
> If we have nobody@httpd.apache.org, would that make it
> easier for people's filters?
It seems to me that the way the list is currently configured will
upset the fewest number of people. The only people who get burned
right now are people who reply to one of Justin's commit followups
and are not subscribed to cvs@httpd (they get a bounce). They can
rectify that by either subscribing or trimming cvs@httpd from their
reply headers.
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jan 2, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>
> nobody@apache.org routes to the bit-bucket, so that would work for
> the To:
> header. That's what I would recommend doing at this point, although
> I've
> just implemented Justin's recommended config and will stop there until
> the list comes to a decision.
>
If we have nobody@httpd.apache.org, would that make it
easier for people's filters?
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 1:47:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> >> From: Justin Erenkrantz
> >> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 12:45:39 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>> Nice. How do people actually handle moderation at the ASF then?
> >>> You're *supposed* to be using Reply-All when you want to accept
> >>> a post. Are none of these clients out there ezmlm-compatible?
> >>
> >> Gmail does the same thing in my last set of moderation emails (the
> >> last list I moderated got deleted last month). Reply-all yields
> >> -accept, not found, -allow.
> >>
> >> I don't *recall* that being the behavior before with Gmail, but it
> >> seems that's what it does now... -- justin
> >
> >
> > Shrug, I can try completely removing the To: header, but I'm fairly
> > certain that some MTA's will add one back (and a missing To: header
> > will trigger anti-spam). Other than that, it's pick your poison
> > time, since no universal solution seems at hand.
>
> Make the To: line the bit-bucket? Like no-reply@
nobody@apache.org routes to the bit-bucket, so that would work for the To:
header. That's what I would recommend doing at this point, although I've
just implemented Justin's recommended config and will stop there until
the list comes to a decision.
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jan 2, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 12:45:39 PM
>> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> Nice. How do people actually handle moderation at the ASF then?
>>> You're *supposed* to be using Reply-All when you want to accept
>>> a post. Are none of these clients out there ezmlm-compatible?
>>
>> Gmail does the same thing in my last set of moderation emails (the
>> last list I moderated got deleted last month). Reply-all yields
>> -accept, not found, -allow.
>>
>> I don't *recall* that being the behavior before with Gmail, but it
>> seems that's what it does now... -- justin
>
>
> Shrug, I can try completely removing the To: header, but I'm fairly
> certain that some MTA's will add one back (and a missing To: header
> will trigger anti-spam). Other than that, it's pick your poison
> time, since no universal solution seems at hand.
Make the To: line the bit-bucket? Like no-reply@
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 12:45:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Nice. How do people actually handle moderation at the ASF then?
> > You're *supposed* to be using Reply-All when you want to accept
> > a post. Are none of these clients out there ezmlm-compatible?
>
> Gmail does the same thing in my last set of moderation emails (the
> last list I moderated got deleted last month). Reply-all yields
> -accept, not found, -allow.
>
> I don't *recall* that being the behavior before with Gmail, but it
> seems that's what it does now... -- justin
Shrug, I can try completely removing the To: header, but I'm fairly
certain that some MTA's will add one back (and a missing To: header
will trigger anti-spam). Other than that, it's pick your poison
time, since no universal solution seems at hand.
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nice. How do people actually handle moderation at the ASF then?
> You're *supposed* to be using Reply-All when you want to accept
> a post. Are none of these clients out there ezmlm-compatible?
Gmail does the same thing in my last set of moderation emails (the
last list I moderated got deleted last month). Reply-all yields
-accept, not found, -allow.
I don't *recall* that being the behavior before with Gmail, but it
seems that's what it does now... -- justin
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 12:32:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > So, is that better or worse than getting a bounce message? I'll point out
> > that Yahoo! used to have a similar problem, but have since resolved it. I
> > wonder what gmail does now?
>
> When you hit 'reply-all' now, GMail adds in:
>
> list not shown
>
> and then gives an error complaining about the address when you hit
> 'send'. -- justin
Nice. How do people actually handle moderation at the ASF then?
You're *supposed* to be using Reply-All when you want to accept
a post. Are none of these clients out there ezmlm-compatible?
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So, is that better or worse than getting a bounce message? I'll point out
> that Yahoo! used to have a similar problem, but have since resolved it. I
> wonder what gmail does now?
When you hit 'reply-all' now, GMail adds in:
list not shown <Recipient>
and then gives an error complaining about the address when you hit
'send'. -- justin
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 11:43:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>
> On 02.01.2009 15:57, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Joe Schaefer
> >> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:42:20 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >>> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr."
> >>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >>> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:37:58 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
> >>>
> >>> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>>> ----- Original Message ----
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr."
> >>>>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:12:28 AM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >>>>>> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> to headeradd for cvs@httpd, overriding the normal To:
> >>>>>> cvs@httpd.apache.org. That should prevent Reply-All from picking up
> >>>>>> the commit list, since there won't be anything in the To: or CC:
> >>>>>> fields for it to use.
> >>>>> Last I checked, thunderbird reply-all does cc undisclosed-recipients.
> >>>>> Very irritating given how we configured the apmail reply-to-all's.
> >>>> Are you sure? AIUI the list is now configured to behave in the
> >>>> same way that ezmlm deals with moderation requests.
> >>> Correction, the exact header used for the apr moderation queue is;
> >>>
> >>> To: Recipient list not shown: ;
> >>>
> >>> so not the same thing as "undisclosed-recipients:"
> >>
> >> Updated.
> >
> > FWIW, RFC-2822 says the text shouldn't matter, as both headers constitute
> > empty groups (albeit with different names).
>
> I tried with Thunderbird 3.0b1. It copies
>
> Recipient list not shown: ;
>
> as well as
>
> undisclosed-recipients:;
>
> to CC when replying to all. When actually sending the message a popup
> occurs, that informs the user, that the address needs to be corrected
> because it is invalid. You can't send before changing or removing the
> address.
So, is that better or worse than getting a bounce message? I'll point out
that Yahoo! used to have a similar problem, but have since resolved it. I
wonder what gmail does now?
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 02.01.2009 15:57, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Joe Schaefer<jo...@yahoo.com>
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:42:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr."
>>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:37:58 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>>>
>>> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>>
>>>>> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr."
>>>>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:12:28 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>>>>>
>>>>> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>>>>> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to headeradd for cvs@httpd, overriding the normal To:
>>>>>> cvs@httpd.apache.org. That should prevent Reply-All from picking up
>>>>>> the commit list, since there won't be anything in the To: or CC:
>>>>>> fields for it to use.
>>>>> Last I checked, thunderbird reply-all does cc undisclosed-recipients.
>>>>> Very irritating given how we configured the apmail reply-to-all's.
>>>> Are you sure? AIUI the list is now configured to behave in the
>>>> same way that ezmlm deals with moderation requests.
>>> Correction, the exact header used for the apr moderation queue is;
>>>
>>> To: Recipient list not shown: ;
>>>
>>> so not the same thing as "undisclosed-recipients:"
>>
>> Updated.
>
> FWIW, RFC-2822 says the text shouldn't matter, as both headers constitute
> empty groups (albeit with different names).
I tried with Thunderbird 3.0b1. It copies
Recipient list not shown: ;
as well as
undisclosed-recipients:;
to CC when replying to all. When actually sending the message a popup
occurs, that informs the user, that the address needs to be corrected
because it is invalid. You can't send before changing or removing the
address.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:42:20 AM
> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: "William A. Rowe, Jr."
> > To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:37:58 AM
> > Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
> >
> > Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > >
> > >> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr."
> > >> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > >> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:12:28 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
> > >>
> > >> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > >>> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> > >>>
> > >>> to headeradd for cvs@httpd, overriding the normal To:
> > >>> cvs@httpd.apache.org. That should prevent Reply-All from picking up
> > >>> the commit list, since there won't be anything in the To: or CC:
> > >>> fields for it to use.
> > >> Last I checked, thunderbird reply-all does cc undisclosed-recipients.
> > >> Very irritating given how we configured the apmail reply-to-all's.
> > >
> > > Are you sure? AIUI the list is now configured to behave in the
> > > same way that ezmlm deals with moderation requests.
> >
> > Correction, the exact header used for the apr moderation queue is;
> >
> > To: Recipient list not shown: ;
> >
> > so not the same thing as "undisclosed-recipients:"
>
>
> Updated.
FWIW, RFC-2822 says the text shouldn't matter, as both headers constitute
empty groups (albeit with different names).
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:37:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> >> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr."
> >> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:12:28 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
> >>
> >> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >>> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> >>>
> >>> to headeradd for cvs@httpd, overriding the normal To:
> >>> cvs@httpd.apache.org. That should prevent Reply-All from picking up
> >>> the commit list, since there won't be anything in the To: or CC:
> >>> fields for it to use.
> >> Last I checked, thunderbird reply-all does cc undisclosed-recipients.
> >> Very irritating given how we configured the apmail reply-to-all's.
> >
> > Are you sure? AIUI the list is now configured to behave in the
> > same way that ezmlm deals with moderation requests.
>
> Correction, the exact header used for the apr moderation queue is;
>
> To: Recipient list not shown: ;
>
> so not the same thing as "undisclosed-recipients:"
Updated.
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:12:28 AM
>> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>>
>> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
>>>
>>> to headeradd for cvs@httpd, overriding the normal To:
>>> cvs@httpd.apache.org. That should prevent Reply-All from picking up
>>> the commit list, since there won't be anything in the To: or CC:
>>> fields for it to use.
>> Last I checked, thunderbird reply-all does cc undisclosed-recipients.
>> Very irritating given how we configured the apmail reply-to-all's.
>
> Are you sure? AIUI the list is now configured to behave in the
> same way that ezmlm deals with moderation requests.
Correction, the exact header used for the apr moderation queue is;
To: Recipient list not shown: ;
so not the same thing as "undisclosed-recipients:"
Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 9:12:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Configuration change for cvs@httpd?
>
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> >
> > to headeradd for cvs@httpd, overriding the normal To:
> > cvs@httpd.apache.org. That should prevent Reply-All from picking up
> > the commit list, since there won't be anything in the To: or CC:
> > fields for it to use.
>
> Last I checked, thunderbird reply-all does cc undisclosed-recipients.
> Very irritating given how we configured the apmail reply-to-all's.
Are you sure? AIUI the list is now configured to behave in the
same way that ezmlm deals with moderation requests.