You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> on 2013/02/07 01:49:21 UTC
[DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
header?
So let me ask the question then. Right now there's 3 people who believes the agreement was cc if you know the recipient you want and it was not to change the reply to address. One person believes it was to change the reply-to address. Anyone else who thought that was the agreement?
Only CC: Animesh, Alex, Brett
Change reply-to: Sheng
--Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:52 AM
> To: Alex Huang; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCE] cloudstack-dev mailing list has stripped "Reply-to"
> header
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:13 PM
> > To: Sheng Yang; Brett Porter
> > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCE] cloudstack-dev mailing list has stripped "Reply-
> to"
> > header
> >
> > The current behavior is not the one I've signed up for. Maybe I
> misunderstood
> > what was being said myself. I agree with Brett. I thought the idea was
> people
> > can cc people directly if they know who they want to get the attention of
> but
> > the mailing list is still the reply-to address. You are still responsible for the
> > topics and tags you're interested in.
> > This convention would have made it easier to filter tags and for any mail
> that
> > cced you to a folder. The recipient should still scan mail subjects without
> tags
> > occasionally but they don't have to worry about missing emails because
> they
> > know full well that if something needs your attention the sender would
> have
> > cced you.
> >
> > As the way this is implemented, if you and brett replied to an email
> separately
> > and I replied to your email, Brett is not included anyways so again it loses
> any
> > type of advantage you think this implementation gains.
> >
> > --Alex
> [Animesh>] I was also under the impression that there is no change to
> default reply to mailing list and we are just agreeing to cc
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:06 PM
> > > To: Brett Porter
> > > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] cloudstack-dev mailing list has stripped "Reply-
> to"
> > > header
> > >
> > > Hi Brett,
> > >
> > > The "reply-to" header is exactly what bothering us. It make us go
> > > through every thread to check if it's the one we've involved or not.
> > >
> > > And, people would able to update their mail client filter to the get
> > > the result they want when we're using current policy, but they can't
> > > get the mail they involved when we enforce "reploy-to" policy.
> > >
> > > I know it's an enforcement for new member reply in the public, but I
> > > believe it's better(and not that hard) to be spontaneously.
> > >
> > > --Sheng
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I hate jumping in after the fact, but I wanted to check if that was
> > > > the result
> > > everyone was expecting? What I understood from the previous thread
> was
> > > that the community would build up a convention of CCing people to get
> > > their attention, not that the default reply-to would be changed.
> > > >
> > > > I'm confused by the claim that the list stripped To/CC, as I can see
> > > > examples
> > > where they were retained when used [1] [2]. When I reply-to-all on
> > > those messages, they are also retained as CCs. Is that not what you were
> > seeing?
> > > >
> > > > The thing that wasn't retained was a CC of the sender if you
> > > > reply-to-all,
> > > but a better alternative to that would be for people wishing to have
> > > that behaviour to CC themselves on mails they send to the list. I know
> > > at least one person said they didn't want to be CC'd on list mails,
> > > and they could then choose whether or not that happens.
> > > >
> > > > The reason reply-to the list is the default is so that the default
> > > > mode of
> > > operation is communicating with the entire community publicly. It is
> > > probably most helpful to newer members of the list that aren't yet
> > > familiar with the conventions. This change will particularly trip up
> > > those that are new to the list, but familiar with other ASF lists
> > > where reply-to is predominantly set. If you intend to continue with
> > > the change, you may want to consider adding a message trailer that
> > > reminds readers of the difference, and points them to the mailing list
> > guidelines.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Brett
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cloudstack-
> > >
> dev/201302.mbox/raw/%3CCA+96GG4YVnrYBjMy4yRQwtpqZLKLYeb39n1kq
> > > WCf06Yswx_23w@mail.gmail.com%3E
> > > > [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cloudstack-
> > > dev/201302.mbox/raw/%3C20130205083909.GC5795@cloud-2.local%3E
> > > >
> > > > On 06/02/2013, at 8:44 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi all,
> > > >>
> > > >> Based on the discussion in
> > > >>
> > >
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/9216 ,
> > > >> I've requested Infra team to disable the list from adding a
> > > >> reply-to header pointing to the list, which means, from now on,
> > > >> every thread you participated, would keep you in the thread, by
> > > >> sending mail to you directly(when others are "replying all").
> > > >>
> > > >> So there is one new rule need to be emphasized: Do remember to
> > > >> reply
> > > all.
> > > >>
> > > >> I've updated the mailing list guide line to include:
> > > >>
> > > >> <quote>
> > > >> Always use "Reply to All", to keep everyone and mailing list in the
> > > >> thread. Don't be afraid to make a correction if you used "Reply" to
> > > >> single people involved by mistake.
> > > >> </quote>
> > > >>
> > > >> I hope this movement would make the communication more effective.
> > > >>
> > > >> PS: you may want to update your mailing list filter, and set your
> > > >> mail client's to "Reply All" by default.
> > > >>
> > > >> --Sheng
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Brett Porter
> > > > brett@apache.org
> > > > http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
> > > > http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
> > > > http://twitter.com/brettporter
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
RE: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
header?
Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.
CC is a great tool for high traffic mailing list, for example, in LKML, it specifically says(http://www.tux.org/lkml/):
Why doesn't <any of the below> answer my mails? Isn't that rude?
If you post to the list and want to make sure a specific individual will see the message, Cc: that person.
We agreed on CC is acceptable during the previous discussion, but, if mail server strip all the "reply-to" header, then people who wants to CC other people have to manually put names on CC list for each mail he/she send out. To me, it's a little bit inconvenient.
So what's the gain of NOT change "reply-to"? At least, I can see, change "reply-to" will help other people who wants to CC.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 5:06 PM
> To: Alex Huang
> Cc: Animesh Chaturvedi; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> header?
>
> The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied mail.
> I don't think that's useful.
>
> I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their own topic,
> but I also think make it easier for developer to keep track is better.
>
> --Sheng
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > So let me ask the question then. Right now there's 3 people who believes
> the agreement was cc if you know the recipient you want and it was not to
> change the reply to address. One person believes it was to change the reply-
> to address. Anyone else who thought that was the agreement?
> >
> > Only CC: Animesh, Alex, Brett
> > Change reply-to: Sheng
> >
> > --Alex
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Animesh Chaturvedi
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:52 AM
> >> To: Alex Huang; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCE] cloudstack-dev mailing list has stripped "Reply-
> to"
> >> header
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:13 PM
> >> > To: Sheng Yang; Brett Porter
> >> > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCE] cloudstack-dev mailing list has stripped
> >> > "Reply-
> >> to"
> >> > header
> >> >
> >> > The current behavior is not the one I've signed up for. Maybe I
> >> misunderstood
> >> > what was being said myself. I agree with Brett. I thought the
> >> > idea was
> >> people
> >> > can cc people directly if they know who they want to get the
> >> > attention of
> >> but
> >> > the mailing list is still the reply-to address. You are still
> >> > responsible for the topics and tags you're interested in.
> >> > This convention would have made it easier to filter tags and for
> >> > any mail
> >> that
> >> > cced you to a folder. The recipient should still scan mail
> >> > subjects without
> >> tags
> >> > occasionally but they don't have to worry about missing emails
> >> > because
> >> they
> >> > know full well that if something needs your attention the sender
> >> > would
> >> have
> >> > cced you.
> >> >
> >> > As the way this is implemented, if you and brett replied to an
> >> > email
> >> separately
> >> > and I replied to your email, Brett is not included anyways so again
> >> > it loses
> >> any
> >> > type of advantage you think this implementation gains.
> >> >
> >> > --Alex
> >> [Animesh>] I was also under the impression that there is no change
> >> to default reply to mailing list and we are just agreeing to cc
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> >> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:06 PM
> >> > > To: Brett Porter
> >> > > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] cloudstack-dev mailing list has stripped
> >> > > "Reply-
> >> to"
> >> > > header
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi Brett,
> >> > >
> >> > > The "reply-to" header is exactly what bothering us. It make us go
> >> > > through every thread to check if it's the one we've involved or not.
> >> > >
> >> > > And, people would able to update their mail client filter to the
> >> > > get the result they want when we're using current policy, but
> >> > > they can't get the mail they involved when we enforce "reploy-to"
> policy.
> >> > >
> >> > > I know it's an enforcement for new member reply in the public,
> >> > > but I believe it's better(and not that hard) to be spontaneously.
> >> > >
> >> > > --Sheng
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> > > > Hi,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I hate jumping in after the fact, but I wanted to check if that
> >> > > > was the result
> >> > > everyone was expecting? What I understood from the previous
> >> > > thread
> >> was
> >> > > that the community would build up a convention of CCing people to
> >> > > get their attention, not that the default reply-to would be changed.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'm confused by the claim that the list stripped To/CC, as I
> >> > > > can see examples
> >> > > where they were retained when used [1] [2]. When I reply-to-all
> >> > > on those messages, they are also retained as CCs. Is that not
> >> > > what you were
> >> > seeing?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The thing that wasn't retained was a CC of the sender if you
> >> > > > reply-to-all,
> >> > > but a better alternative to that would be for people wishing to
> >> > > have that behaviour to CC themselves on mails they send to the
> >> > > list. I know at least one person said they didn't want to be CC'd
> >> > > on list mails, and they could then choose whether or not that happens.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The reason reply-to the list is the default is so that the
> >> > > > default mode of
> >> > > operation is communicating with the entire community publicly. It
> >> > > is probably most helpful to newer members of the list that aren't
> >> > > yet familiar with the conventions. This change will particularly
> >> > > trip up those that are new to the list, but familiar with other
> >> > > ASF lists where reply-to is predominantly set. If you intend to
> >> > > continue with the change, you may want to consider adding a
> >> > > message trailer that reminds readers of the difference, and
> >> > > points them to the mailing list
> >> > guidelines.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Cheers,
> >> > > > Brett
> >> > > >
> >> > > > [1]
> >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cloudstack-
> >> > >
> >>
> dev/201302.mbox/raw/%3CCA+96GG4YVnrYBjMy4yRQwtpqZLKLYeb39n1kq
> >> > > WCf06Yswx_23w@mail.gmail.com%3E
> >> > > > [2]
> >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cloudstack-
> >> > > dev/201302.mbox/raw/%3C20130205083909.GC5795@cloud-
> 2.local%3E
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 06/02/2013, at 8:44 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Hi all,
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Based on the discussion in
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >>
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/9216 ,
> >> > > >> I've requested Infra team to disable the list from adding a
> >> > > >> reply-to header pointing to the list, which means, from now
> >> > > >> on, every thread you participated, would keep you in the
> >> > > >> thread, by sending mail to you directly(when others are "replying
> all").
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> So there is one new rule need to be emphasized: Do remember to
> >> > > >> reply
> >> > > all.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I've updated the mailing list guide line to include:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> <quote>
> >> > > >> Always use "Reply to All", to keep everyone and mailing list
> >> > > >> in the thread. Don't be afraid to make a correction if you
> >> > > >> used "Reply" to single people involved by mistake.
> >> > > >> </quote>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I hope this movement would make the communication more
> effective.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> PS: you may want to update your mailing list filter, and set
> >> > > >> your mail client's to "Reply All" by default.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --Sheng
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Brett Porter
> >> > > > brett@apache.org
> >> > > > http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
> >> > > > http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
> >> > > > http://twitter.com/brettporter
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" header?
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Feb 7, 2013, at 4:01 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied mail.
>>> I don't think that's useful.
>>>
>>> I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their
>>> own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep track
>>> is better.
>>>
>>
>> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a developer that contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject (as I am doing here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
>> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC list
>> - set up filters to label threads that include their name
>>
>> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list reply-to?
>
> Don't think it's edge case, otherwise LKML won't encourage CC. The old
> policy just can't scale - if we would have a even bigger community
> later.
>
> And:
> 1. Information redundancy, and not elegant. If you send out a mail,
> why you cannot receive the reply address to you unless you CC
> yourselves? It wouldn't happen when you send mail to a friend.
> 2. Mail filter based on the email header is most efficient, not on
> context. And it's not the same thing, e.g. I don't think Linus
> Torvalds would care much if someone mentioned him by name in one mail
> context of the mailing list, unless it's addressed to him(even so, if
> he doesn't have interests, he won't care).
>
> --Sheng
>>
>> - Brett
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> brett@apache.org
>> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
>> http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
>> http://twitter.com/brettporter
>>
>>
>>
>>
I am +1 on leaving the "reply-to" as the list
I am -0 on the CC issue
-sebastien
Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" header?
Posted by Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>
>> The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied mail.
>> I don't think that's useful.
>>
>> I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their
>> own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep track
>> is better.
>>
>
> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a developer that contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject (as I am doing here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC list
> - set up filters to label threads that include their name
>
> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list reply-to?
Don't think it's edge case, otherwise LKML won't encourage CC. The old
policy just can't scale - if we would have a even bigger community
later.
And:
1. Information redundancy, and not elegant. If you send out a mail,
why you cannot receive the reply address to you unless you CC
yourselves? It wouldn't happen when you send mail to a friend.
2. Mail filter based on the email header is most efficient, not on
context. And it's not the same thing, e.g. I don't think Linus
Torvalds would care much if someone mentioned him by name in one mail
context of the mailing list, unless it's addressed to him(even so, if
he doesn't have interests, he won't care).
--Sheng
>
> - Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
> http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
> http://twitter.com/brettporter
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
header?
Posted by Somik Behera <so...@vmware.com>.
+1 to the old style.
Somik
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Sorensen" <sh...@gmail.com>
To: "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org>
Cc: "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com>, cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org, "Alex Karasulu" <ak...@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 9:35:03 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" header?
+1 to go back. I don't like a policy that requires you to do something
special to keep conversations on-list and in the community.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> It's not a surprise. If you read the notice I sent out, you would know it's
> a expected problem when you're new to this policy.
>
> -1 on revert to old policy.
>
> --Sheng
> On Feb 7, 2013 6:45 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:04:07PM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>> > Ooops sent this to Brett directly. Thanks for the heads up Brett.
>> >
>>
>> And here's our problem!
>>
>> Can we please ask to have the change reverted?
>>
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied
>> mail.
>> > >> > I don't think that's useful.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their
>> > >> > own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep
>> track
>> > >> > is better.
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a developer
>> that
>> > >> contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject (as I am
>> doing
>> > >> here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
>> > >> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC list
>> > >> - set up filters to label threads that include their name
>> > >>
>> > >> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list
>> reply-to?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > > I agree with Brett here. Filters are a life saver by the way.
>> > >
>> > > Also with the javelin branch merged, some of the envisioned
>> > > component-ization activities might enable a better mailing list
>> > > organization. This is all good stuff to consider and possibly take
>> care of
>> > > at graduation time if it still seems necessary. WDYT?
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Best Regards,
>> > > -- Alex
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best Regards,
>> > -- Alex
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" header?
Posted by Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>.
+1 to go back. I don't like a policy that requires you to do something
special to keep conversations on-list and in the community.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> It's not a surprise. If you read the notice I sent out, you would know it's
> a expected problem when you're new to this policy.
>
> -1 on revert to old policy.
>
> --Sheng
> On Feb 7, 2013 6:45 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:04:07PM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>> > Ooops sent this to Brett directly. Thanks for the heads up Brett.
>> >
>>
>> And here's our problem!
>>
>> Can we please ask to have the change reverted?
>>
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied
>> mail.
>> > >> > I don't think that's useful.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their
>> > >> > own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep
>> track
>> > >> > is better.
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a developer
>> that
>> > >> contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject (as I am
>> doing
>> > >> here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
>> > >> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC list
>> > >> - set up filters to label threads that include their name
>> > >>
>> > >> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list
>> reply-to?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > > I agree with Brett here. Filters are a life saver by the way.
>> > >
>> > > Also with the javelin branch merged, some of the envisioned
>> > > component-ization activities might enable a better mailing list
>> > > organization. This is all good stuff to consider and possibly take
>> care of
>> > > at graduation time if it still seems necessary. WDYT?
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Best Regards,
>> > > -- Alex
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best Regards,
>> > -- Alex
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
header?
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
On 02/07/2013 07:48 PM, Frank Zhang wrote:
> -1 for go back
+1 (So that's a -1 for going back).
> Lots of mailist don't strip 'Reply-to', I totally don't understand why ASF does this.
> I believe people on mailist consciously communicate on public, it's less likely they will send private mail just because of mail having 'Reply-to'.
> However, lacking of 'Reply-to' burdens people much to track threads they interested in. Maybe some people has good mail client that has usable search, but don't forget there are still some people using poor outlook with nightmare search.
I don't get it either. I'm used to hitting "Reply-All", but Thunderbird
simply has a button: Reply-List and that's what I use.
I'm also a member of lists like libvirt, but I have receiving e-mails
disabled. They rule is that you hit "Reply-All", so I get replies on
messages I've sent, but I don't get the rest.
I expect some people would want the same on this list.
Wido
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:32 AM
>> To: Chip Childers
>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
>> header?
>>
>> It's not a surprise. If you read the notice I sent out, you would know it's a
>> expected problem when you're new to this policy.
>>
>> -1 on revert to old policy.
>>
>> --Sheng
>> On Feb 7, 2013 6:45 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:04:07PM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>>> Ooops sent this to Brett directly. Thanks for the heads up Brett.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And here's our problem!
>>>
>>> Can we please ask to have the change reverted?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alex Karasulu
>>>> <ak...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy
>>>>>>> replied
>>> mail.
>>>>>>> I don't think that's useful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of
>>>>>>> their own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer
>>>>>>> to keep
>>> track
>>>>>>> is better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a
>>>>>> developer
>>> that
>>>>>> contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject (as
>>>>>> I am
>>> doing
>>>>>> here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
>>>>>> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC
>>>>>> list
>>>>>> - set up filters to label threads that include their name
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list
>>> reply-to?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Brett here. Filters are a life saver by the way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also with the javelin branch merged, some of the envisioned
>>>>> component-ization activities might enable a better mailing list
>>>>> organization. This is all good stuff to consider and possibly take
>>> care of
>>>>> at graduation time if it still seems necessary. WDYT?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>> -- Alex
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> -- Alex
>>>
RE: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
header?
Posted by Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com>.
-1 for go back
Lots of mailist don't strip 'Reply-to', I totally don't understand why ASF does this.
I believe people on mailist consciously communicate on public, it's less likely they will send private mail just because of mail having 'Reply-to'.
However, lacking of 'Reply-to' burdens people much to track threads they interested in. Maybe some people has good mail client that has usable search, but don't forget there are still some people using poor outlook with nightmare search.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:32 AM
> To: Chip Childers
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> header?
>
> It's not a surprise. If you read the notice I sent out, you would know it's a
> expected problem when you're new to this policy.
>
> -1 on revert to old policy.
>
> --Sheng
> On Feb 7, 2013 6:45 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:04:07PM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > > Ooops sent this to Brett directly. Thanks for the heads up Brett.
> > >
> >
> > And here's our problem!
> >
> > Can we please ask to have the change reverted?
> >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alex Karasulu
> > > <ak...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy
> > > >> > replied
> > mail.
> > > >> > I don't think that's useful.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of
> > > >> > their own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer
> > > >> > to keep
> > track
> > > >> > is better.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a
> > > >> developer
> > that
> > > >> contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject (as
> > > >> I am
> > doing
> > > >> here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
> > > >> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC
> > > >> list
> > > >> - set up filters to label threads that include their name
> > > >>
> > > >> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list
> > reply-to?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > I agree with Brett here. Filters are a life saver by the way.
> > > >
> > > > Also with the javelin branch merged, some of the envisioned
> > > > component-ization activities might enable a better mailing list
> > > > organization. This is all good stuff to consider and possibly take
> > care of
> > > > at graduation time if it still seems necessary. WDYT?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > -- Alex
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards,
> > > -- Alex
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" header?
Posted by Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>.
It's not a surprise. If you read the notice I sent out, you would know it's
a expected problem when you're new to this policy.
-1 on revert to old policy.
--Sheng
On Feb 7, 2013 6:45 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:04:07PM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > Ooops sent this to Brett directly. Thanks for the heads up Brett.
> >
>
> And here's our problem!
>
> Can we please ask to have the change reverted?
>
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied
> mail.
> > >> > I don't think that's useful.
> > >> >
> > >> > I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their
> > >> > own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep
> track
> > >> > is better.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a developer
> that
> > >> contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject (as I am
> doing
> > >> here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
> > >> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC list
> > >> - set up filters to label threads that include their name
> > >>
> > >> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list
> reply-to?
> > >>
> > >>
> > > I agree with Brett here. Filters are a life saver by the way.
> > >
> > > Also with the javelin branch merged, some of the envisioned
> > > component-ization activities might enable a better mailing list
> > > organization. This is all good stuff to consider and possibly take
> care of
> > > at graduation time if it still seems necessary. WDYT?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards,
> > > -- Alex
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards,
> > -- Alex
>
RE: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
header?
Posted by Hugo Trippaers <HT...@schubergphilis.com>.
+1 to reverting back to the old reply-to style.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dkulp@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:14 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> header?
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:04:07PM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> >> Ooops sent this to Brett directly. Thanks for the heads up Brett.
> >>
> >
> > And here's our problem!
>
> Agreed. Reply's, by default, must go TO the list and maybe CC the others
> involved. Not to the person and maybe CC the list. I just had to shuffle all
> the addresses around just to achieve that.
>
> > Can we please ask to have the change reverted?
>
> +1. This setup is completely backwards. It encourages conversations to go
> off list, which is bad. Seeing this from Alex really proves the whole point.
>
>
> Dan
>
>
> >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied mail.
> >>>>> I don't think that's useful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of
> >>>>> their own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to
> >>>>> keep track is better.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a developer
> >>>> that contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject
> >>>> (as I am doing here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
> >>>> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC
> >>>> list
> >>>> - set up filters to label threads that include their name
> >>>>
> >>>> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list reply-to?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I agree with Brett here. Filters are a life saver by the way.
> >>>
> >>> Also with the javelin branch merged, some of the envisioned
> >>> component-ization activities might enable a better mailing list
> >>> organization. This is all good stuff to consider and possibly take
> >>> care of at graduation time if it still seems necessary. WDYT?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Best Regards,
> >>> -- Alex
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best Regards,
> >> -- Alex
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder -
> http://coders.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" header?
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:04:07PM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>> Ooops sent this to Brett directly. Thanks for the heads up Brett.
>>
>
> And here's our problem!
Agreed. Reply's, by default, must go TO the list and maybe CC the others involved. Not to the person and maybe CC the list. I just had to shuffle all the addresses around just to achieve that.
> Can we please ask to have the change reverted?
+1. This setup is completely backwards. It encourages conversations to go off list, which is bad. Seeing this from Alex really proves the whole point.
Dan
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied mail.
>>>>> I don't think that's useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their
>>>>> own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep track
>>>>> is better.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a developer that
>>>> contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject (as I am doing
>>>> here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
>>>> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC list
>>>> - set up filters to label threads that include their name
>>>>
>>>> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list reply-to?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I agree with Brett here. Filters are a life saver by the way.
>>>
>>> Also with the javelin branch merged, some of the envisioned
>>> component-ization activities might enable a better mailing list
>>> organization. This is all good stuff to consider and possibly take care of
>>> at graduation time if it still seems necessary. WDYT?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best Regards,
>>> -- Alex
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>> -- Alex
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
RE: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
header?
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
My bad I must have missed it
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 7:04 PM
> To: Animesh Chaturvedi
> Cc: 'Sheng Yang'; Alex Huang; Frank Zhang; cloudstack-
> dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> header?
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 06:44:21PM -0800, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> > Sheng
> >
> > Let's get the VOTE started
> >
>
> We already did [1], and Sheng kindly opened the INFRA ticket to revert the
> change to the list configuration [2].
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/nxy6lmifqhnstz3a
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5850
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Frank Zhang [mailto:Frank.Zhang@citrix.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 1:37 PM
> > > To: 'Sheng Yang'; Alex Huang
> > > Cc: Chip Childers; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex
> > > Karasulu
> > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> > > header?
> > >
> > > Let's just get the vote start
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:06 PM
> > > > To: Alex Huang
> > > > Cc: Chip Childers; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex
> > > > Karasulu
> > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> > > > header?
> > > >
> > > > In fact I just found adding "Reply-to" on behavior of mailing list
> > > > server violated the IETF's definition of email.
> > > >
> > > > Accord to the latest RFC 5322(obsoletes RFC 2822, which obsoletes
> > > > RFC
> > > > 822) on "Internet Message Format"[1], 3.6.2 Originator Fields:
> > > >
> > > > <quote>
> > > > When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
> > > > indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests
> > > > that replies be sent.
> > > > </quote>
> > > >
> > > > Apparently, mailing list server is NOT the author of message, so
> > > > it have no privilege to add this field to the mail.
> > > >
> > > > Also, it's recommended to read the article by Chip Rosenthal(which
> > > > provided by Alex in the previous mail)[2], titled `"Reply-To"
> > > > Munging Considered Harmful`.
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2
> > > > [2] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> > > >
> > > > --Sheng
RE: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
header?
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
It went to a folder that I forgot to check,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 7:13 PM
> To: 'Chip Childers'
> Cc: 'Sheng Yang'; Alex Huang; Frank Zhang; cloudstack-
> dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> header?
>
> My bad I must have missed it
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 7:04 PM
> > To: Animesh Chaturvedi
> > Cc: 'Sheng Yang'; Alex Huang; Frank Zhang; cloudstack-
> > dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> > header?
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 06:44:21PM -0800, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> > > Sheng
> > >
> > > Let's get the VOTE started
> > >
> >
> > We already did [1], and Sheng kindly opened the INFRA ticket to revert
> > the change to the list configuration [2].
> >
> > [1] http://markmail.org/message/nxy6lmifqhnstz3a
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5850
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Frank Zhang [mailto:Frank.Zhang@citrix.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 1:37 PM
> > > > To: 'Sheng Yang'; Alex Huang
> > > > Cc: Chip Childers; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex
> > > > Karasulu
> > > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> > > > header?
> > > >
> > > > Let's just get the vote start
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:06 PM
> > > > > To: Alex Huang
> > > > > Cc: Chip Childers; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex
> > > > > Karasulu
> > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> > > > > header?
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact I just found adding "Reply-to" on behavior of mailing
> > > > > list server violated the IETF's definition of email.
> > > > >
> > > > > Accord to the latest RFC 5322(obsoletes RFC 2822, which
> > > > > obsoletes RFC
> > > > > 822) on "Internet Message Format"[1], 3.6.2 Originator Fields:
> > > > >
> > > > > <quote>
> > > > > When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
> > > > > indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests
> > > > > that replies be sent.
> > > > > </quote>
> > > > >
> > > > > Apparently, mailing list server is NOT the author of message, so
> > > > > it have no privilege to add this field to the mail.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, it's recommended to read the article by Chip
> > > > > Rosenthal(which provided by Alex in the previous mail)[2], titled
> `"Reply-To"
> > > > > Munging Considered Harmful`.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2
> > > > > [2] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> > > > >
> > > > > --Sheng
Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
header?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 06:44:21PM -0800, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> Sheng
>
> Let's get the VOTE started
>
We already did [1], and Sheng kindly opened the INFRA ticket to revert the
change to the list configuration [2].
[1] http://markmail.org/message/nxy6lmifqhnstz3a
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5850
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Frank Zhang [mailto:Frank.Zhang@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 1:37 PM
> > To: 'Sheng Yang'; Alex Huang
> > Cc: Chip Childers; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu
> > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> > header?
> >
> > Let's just get the vote start
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:06 PM
> > > To: Alex Huang
> > > Cc: Chip Childers; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu
> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> > > header?
> > >
> > > In fact I just found adding "Reply-to" on behavior of mailing list
> > > server violated the IETF's definition of email.
> > >
> > > Accord to the latest RFC 5322(obsoletes RFC 2822, which obsoletes RFC
> > > 822) on "Internet Message Format"[1], 3.6.2 Originator Fields:
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > > When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
> > > indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests
> > > that replies be sent.
> > > </quote>
> > >
> > > Apparently, mailing list server is NOT the author of message, so it
> > > have no privilege to add this field to the mail.
> > >
> > > Also, it's recommended to read the article by Chip Rosenthal(which
> > > provided by Alex in the previous mail)[2], titled `"Reply-To" Munging
> > > Considered Harmful`.
> > >
> > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2
> > > [2] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> > >
> > > --Sheng
RE: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
header?
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
Sheng
Let's get the VOTE started
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Zhang [mailto:Frank.Zhang@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 1:37 PM
> To: 'Sheng Yang'; Alex Huang
> Cc: Chip Childers; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> header?
>
> Let's just get the vote start
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:06 PM
> > To: Alex Huang
> > Cc: Chip Childers; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> > header?
> >
> > In fact I just found adding "Reply-to" on behavior of mailing list
> > server violated the IETF's definition of email.
> >
> > Accord to the latest RFC 5322(obsoletes RFC 2822, which obsoletes RFC
> > 822) on "Internet Message Format"[1], 3.6.2 Originator Fields:
> >
> > <quote>
> > When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
> > indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests
> > that replies be sent.
> > </quote>
> >
> > Apparently, mailing list server is NOT the author of message, so it
> > have no privilege to add this field to the mail.
> >
> > Also, it's recommended to read the article by Chip Rosenthal(which
> > provided by Alex in the previous mail)[2], titled `"Reply-To" Munging
> > Considered Harmful`.
> >
> > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2
> > [2] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> >
> > --Sheng
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> > > OK, I would call a formal vote myself today.
> > >
> > > --Sheng
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> Sheng,
> > >>
> > >> You should setup the vote yourself. The consensus of the thread
> > >> seems
> > to be toward reverting.
> > >>
> > >> I would say for your idea to have a fair chance, you should
> > >> encourage
> > people to read this link [1] specifically before voting.
> > >>
> > >> --Alex
> > >>
> > >> [1] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> > >>> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:44 AM
> > >>> To: Chip Childers
> > >>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu
> > >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> > >>> header?
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Chip,
> > >>>
> > >>> Could you set up a formal vote thread for this?
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks!
> > >>>
> > >>> --Sheng
> > >>> On Feb 7, 2013 6:45 AM, "Chip Childers"
> > >>> <ch...@sungard.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:04:07PM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > >>> > > Ooops sent this to Brett directly. Thanks for the heads up Brett.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > And here's our problem!
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Can we please ask to have the change reverted?
> > >>> >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alex Karasulu
> > >>> > > <ak...@apache.org>
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Brett Porter
> > >>> > > > <br...@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >> > The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy
> > >>> > > >> > replied
> > >>> > mail.
> > >>> > > >> > I don't think that's useful.
> > >>> > > >> >
> > >>> > > >> > I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep
> > >>> > > >> > track of their own topic, but I also think make it easier
> > >>> > > >> > for developer to keep
> > >>> > track
> > >>> > > >> > is better.
> > >>> > > >> >
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a
> > >>> > > >> developer
> > >>> > that
> > >>> > > >> contributes to a thread will remember to follow that
> > >>> > > >> subject (as I am
> > >>> > doing
> > >>> > > >> here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
> > >>> > > >> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on
> > >>> > > >> the CC list
> > >>> > > >> - set up filters to label threads that include their name
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the
> > >>> > > >> list
> > >>> > reply-to?
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > > I agree with Brett here. Filters are a life saver by the way.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Also with the javelin branch merged, some of the envisioned
> > >>> > > > component-ization activities might enable a better mailing
> > >>> > > > list organization. This is all good stuff to consider and
> > >>> > > > possibly take
> > >>> > care of
> > >>> > > > at graduation time if it still seems necessary. WDYT?
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > --
> > >>> > > > Best Regards,
> > >>> > > > -- Alex
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > --
> > >>> > > Best Regards,
> > >>> > > -- Alex
> > >>> >
RE: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
header?
Posted by Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com>.
Let's just get the vote start
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:06 PM
> To: Alex Huang
> Cc: Chip Childers; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> header?
>
> In fact I just found adding "Reply-to" on behavior of mailing list server
> violated the IETF's definition of email.
>
> Accord to the latest RFC 5322(obsoletes RFC 2822, which obsoletes RFC
> 822) on "Internet Message Format"[1], 3.6.2 Originator Fields:
>
> <quote>
> When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
> indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests
> that replies be sent.
> </quote>
>
> Apparently, mailing list server is NOT the author of message, so it have no
> privilege to add this field to the mail.
>
> Also, it's recommended to read the article by Chip Rosenthal(which provided
> by Alex in the previous mail)[2], titled `"Reply-To" Munging Considered
> Harmful`.
>
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2
> [2] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> --Sheng
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> > OK, I would call a formal vote myself today.
> >
> > --Sheng
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> >> Sheng,
> >>
> >> You should setup the vote yourself. The consensus of the thread seems
> to be toward reverting.
> >>
> >> I would say for your idea to have a fair chance, you should encourage
> people to read this link [1] specifically before voting.
> >>
> >> --Alex
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:44 AM
> >>> To: Chip Childers
> >>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu
> >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> >>> header?
> >>>
> >>> Hi Chip,
> >>>
> >>> Could you set up a formal vote thread for this?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> --Sheng
> >>> On Feb 7, 2013 6:45 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:04:07PM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> >>> > > Ooops sent this to Brett directly. Thanks for the heads up Brett.
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> > And here's our problem!
> >>> >
> >>> > Can we please ask to have the change reverted?
> >>> >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alex Karasulu
> >>> > > <ak...@apache.org>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Brett Porter
> >>> > > > <br...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>
> wrote:
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> > The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy
> >>> > > >> > replied
> >>> > mail.
> >>> > > >> > I don't think that's useful.
> >>> > > >> >
> >>> > > >> > I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track
> >>> > > >> > of their own topic, but I also think make it easier for
> >>> > > >> > developer to keep
> >>> > track
> >>> > > >> > is better.
> >>> > > >> >
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a
> >>> > > >> developer
> >>> > that
> >>> > > >> contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject
> >>> > > >> (as I am
> >>> > doing
> >>> > > >> here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
> >>> > > >> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the
> >>> > > >> CC list
> >>> > > >> - set up filters to label threads that include their name
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list
> >>> > reply-to?
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > > I agree with Brett here. Filters are a life saver by the way.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Also with the javelin branch merged, some of the envisioned
> >>> > > > component-ization activities might enable a better mailing
> >>> > > > list organization. This is all good stuff to consider and
> >>> > > > possibly take
> >>> > care of
> >>> > > > at graduation time if it still seems necessary. WDYT?
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > --
> >>> > > > Best Regards,
> >>> > > > -- Alex
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > --
> >>> > > Best Regards,
> >>> > > -- Alex
> >>> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" header?
Posted by Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>.
In fact I just found adding "Reply-to" on behavior of mailing list
server violated the IETF's definition of email.
Accord to the latest RFC 5322(obsoletes RFC 2822, which obsoletes RFC
822) on "Internet Message Format"[1], 3.6.2 Originator Fields:
<quote>
When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests
that replies be sent.
</quote>
Apparently, mailing list server is NOT the author of message, so it
have no privilege to add this field to the mail.
Also, it's recommended to read the article by Chip Rosenthal(which
provided by Alex in the previous mail)[2], titled `"Reply-To" Munging
Considered Harmful`.
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2
[2] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
--Sheng
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> OK, I would call a formal vote myself today.
>
> --Sheng
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Sheng,
>>
>> You should setup the vote yourself. The consensus of the thread seems to be toward reverting.
>>
>> I would say for your idea to have a fair chance, you should encourage people to read this link [1] specifically before voting.
>>
>> --Alex
>>
>> [1] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:44 AM
>>> To: Chip Childers
>>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
>>> header?
>>>
>>> Hi Chip,
>>>
>>> Could you set up a formal vote thread for this?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> --Sheng
>>> On Feb 7, 2013 6:45 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:04:07PM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>> > > Ooops sent this to Brett directly. Thanks for the heads up Brett.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > And here's our problem!
>>> >
>>> > Can we please ask to have the change reverted?
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> > The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied
>>> > mail.
>>> > > >> > I don't think that's useful.
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >> > I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their
>>> > > >> > own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep
>>> > track
>>> > > >> > is better.
>>> > > >> >
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a developer
>>> > that
>>> > > >> contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject (as I am
>>> > doing
>>> > > >> here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
>>> > > >> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC list
>>> > > >> - set up filters to label threads that include their name
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list
>>> > reply-to?
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > > I agree with Brett here. Filters are a life saver by the way.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Also with the javelin branch merged, some of the envisioned
>>> > > > component-ization activities might enable a better mailing list
>>> > > > organization. This is all good stuff to consider and possibly take
>>> > care of
>>> > > > at graduation time if it still seems necessary. WDYT?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --
>>> > > > Best Regards,
>>> > > > -- Alex
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Best Regards,
>>> > > -- Alex
>>> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" header?
Posted by Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>.
OK, I would call a formal vote myself today.
--Sheng
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Sheng,
>
> You should setup the vote yourself. The consensus of the thread seems to be toward reverting.
>
> I would say for your idea to have a fair chance, you should encourage people to read this link [1] specifically before voting.
>
> --Alex
>
> [1] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:44 AM
>> To: Chip Childers
>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
>> header?
>>
>> Hi Chip,
>>
>> Could you set up a formal vote thread for this?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --Sheng
>> On Feb 7, 2013 6:45 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:04:07PM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>> > > Ooops sent this to Brett directly. Thanks for the heads up Brett.
>> > >
>> >
>> > And here's our problem!
>> >
>> > Can we please ask to have the change reverted?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied
>> > mail.
>> > > >> > I don't think that's useful.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their
>> > > >> > own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep
>> > track
>> > > >> > is better.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a developer
>> > that
>> > > >> contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject (as I am
>> > doing
>> > > >> here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
>> > > >> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC list
>> > > >> - set up filters to label threads that include their name
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list
>> > reply-to?
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > > I agree with Brett here. Filters are a life saver by the way.
>> > > >
>> > > > Also with the javelin branch merged, some of the envisioned
>> > > > component-ization activities might enable a better mailing list
>> > > > organization. This is all good stuff to consider and possibly take
>> > care of
>> > > > at graduation time if it still seems necessary. WDYT?
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Best Regards,
>> > > > -- Alex
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Best Regards,
>> > > -- Alex
>> >
RE: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
header?
Posted by Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.
Sheng,
You should setup the vote yourself. The consensus of the thread seems to be toward reverting.
I would say for your idea to have a fair chance, you should encourage people to read this link [1] specifically before voting.
--Alex
[1] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:44 AM
> To: Chip Childers
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
> header?
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> Could you set up a formal vote thread for this?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Sheng
> On Feb 7, 2013 6:45 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:04:07PM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > > Ooops sent this to Brett directly. Thanks for the heads up Brett.
> > >
> >
> > And here's our problem!
> >
> > Can we please ask to have the change reverted?
> >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied
> > mail.
> > > >> > I don't think that's useful.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their
> > > >> > own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep
> > track
> > > >> > is better.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a developer
> > that
> > > >> contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject (as I am
> > doing
> > > >> here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
> > > >> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC list
> > > >> - set up filters to label threads that include their name
> > > >>
> > > >> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list
> > reply-to?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > I agree with Brett here. Filters are a life saver by the way.
> > > >
> > > > Also with the javelin branch merged, some of the envisioned
> > > > component-ization activities might enable a better mailing list
> > > > organization. This is all good stuff to consider and possibly take
> > care of
> > > > at graduation time if it still seems necessary. WDYT?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > -- Alex
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards,
> > > -- Alex
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" header?
Posted by Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>.
Hi Chip,
Could you set up a formal vote thread for this?
Thanks!
--Sheng
On Feb 7, 2013 6:45 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:04:07PM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > Ooops sent this to Brett directly. Thanks for the heads up Brett.
> >
>
> And here's our problem!
>
> Can we please ask to have the change reverted?
>
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied
> mail.
> > >> > I don't think that's useful.
> > >> >
> > >> > I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their
> > >> > own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep
> track
> > >> > is better.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a developer
> that
> > >> contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject (as I am
> doing
> > >> here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
> > >> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC list
> > >> - set up filters to label threads that include their name
> > >>
> > >> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list
> reply-to?
> > >>
> > >>
> > > I agree with Brett here. Filters are a life saver by the way.
> > >
> > > Also with the javelin branch merged, some of the envisioned
> > > component-ization activities might enable a better mailing list
> > > organization. This is all good stuff to consider and possibly take
> care of
> > > at graduation time if it still seems necessary. WDYT?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards,
> > > -- Alex
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards,
> > -- Alex
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
header?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:04:07PM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Ooops sent this to Brett directly. Thanks for the heads up Brett.
>
And here's our problem!
Can we please ask to have the change reverted?
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied mail.
> >> > I don't think that's useful.
> >> >
> >> > I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their
> >> > own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep track
> >> > is better.
> >> >
> >>
> >> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a developer that
> >> contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject (as I am doing
> >> here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
> >> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC list
> >> - set up filters to label threads that include their name
> >>
> >> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list reply-to?
> >>
> >>
> > I agree with Brett here. Filters are a life saver by the way.
> >
> > Also with the javelin branch merged, some of the envisioned
> > component-ization activities might enable a better mailing list
> > organization. This is all good stuff to consider and possibly take care of
> > at graduation time if it still seems necessary. WDYT?
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards,
> > -- Alex
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> -- Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" header?
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
Ooops sent this to Brett directly. Thanks for the heads up Brett.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>
>> > The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied mail.
>> > I don't think that's useful.
>> >
>> > I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their
>> > own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep track
>> > is better.
>> >
>>
>> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a developer that
>> contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject (as I am doing
>> here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
>> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC list
>> - set up filters to label threads that include their name
>>
>> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list reply-to?
>>
>>
> I agree with Brett here. Filters are a life saver by the way.
>
> Also with the javelin branch merged, some of the envisioned
> component-ization activities might enable a better mailing list
> organization. This is all good stuff to consider and possibly take care of
> at graduation time if it still seems necessary. WDYT?
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> -- Alex
>
--
Best Regards,
-- Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" header?
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied mail.
> I don't think that's useful.
>
> I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their
> own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep track
> is better.
>
This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a developer that contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject (as I am doing here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives:
- CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC list
- set up filters to label threads that include their name
Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list reply-to?
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
http://twitter.com/brettporter
Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" header?
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:05:38PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>> The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied mail.
>> I don't think that's useful.
>>
>> I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their
>> own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep track
>> is better.
>>
>> --Sheng
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> > So let me ask the question then. Right now there's 3 people who believes the agreement was cc if you know the recipient you want and it was not to change the reply to address. One person believes it was to change the reply-to address. Anyone else who thought that was the agreement?
>> >
>> > Only CC: Animesh, Alex, Brett
>> > Change reply-to: Sheng
>> >
>> > --Alex
>
> I'll state for the record that I'm a -0 on this. I won't block it from
> happening, but I disagree with the change.
>
> I've already voiced my concerns about the whole CC'ing thing from the
> start. I respect the wishes of folks that want to be CC'ed, but struggle
> to get attention when all committers need to read something. It seems like a
> bad habit for people to expect to be CC'ed.
>
> But if the concensus is that CC'ing is good (and it seems that I may be
> a lone dissenter, or at least in a minority), then I still am not
> convinced that the list serv change was a good thing. First, it makes it
> much more complicated for new community members to "do the right thing"
> by keeping the list in the loop. Second, what if I don't want to be
> CC'ed on emails? If I did want to keep getting emails with me in the
> CC, then I could just CC myself on the initial message.
>
> As I said, I'm -0 on this... in disagreement, but not enough to
> disregard other people's preferences.
>
> -chip
My primary concern is that reply-to should be the list. After that I
am a bit more apathetic.
That said, I find it incredibly frustrating when I can't get folks
attention, or folks indicate they had no idea a conversation had
happened when many messages changed hands.
This is supposed to be a community, where things happen in public,
specifically on the mailing list. A contributor who essentially
indicates that they can't be bothered to keep up with and participate
in our primary forum/means of communication and demands I address them
privately gives me pause. Yes, we have a high volume list - and no,
the separate mailing list for jira tickets likely won't provide any
real relief for folks who need to see both. I don't claim to have a
solution, it's a vexing problem
Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to"
header?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:05:38PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied mail.
> I don't think that's useful.
>
> I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their
> own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep track
> is better.
>
> --Sheng
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > So let me ask the question then. Right now there's 3 people who believes the agreement was cc if you know the recipient you want and it was not to change the reply to address. One person believes it was to change the reply-to address. Anyone else who thought that was the agreement?
> >
> > Only CC: Animesh, Alex, Brett
> > Change reply-to: Sheng
> >
> > --Alex
I'll state for the record that I'm a -0 on this. I won't block it from
happening, but I disagree with the change.
I've already voiced my concerns about the whole CC'ing thing from the
start. I respect the wishes of folks that want to be CC'ed, but struggle
to get attention when all committers need to read something. It seems like a
bad habit for people to expect to be CC'ed.
But if the concensus is that CC'ing is good (and it seems that I may be
a lone dissenter, or at least in a minority), then I still am not
convinced that the list serv change was a good thing. First, it makes it
much more complicated for new community members to "do the right thing"
by keeping the list in the loop. Second, what if I don't want to be
CC'ed on emails? If I did want to keep getting emails with me in the
CC, then I could just CC myself on the initial message.
As I said, I'm -0 on this... in disagreement, but not enough to
disregard other people's preferences.
-chip
Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" header?
Posted by Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>.
The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied mail.
I don't think that's useful.
I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their
own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep track
is better.
--Sheng
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
> So let me ask the question then. Right now there's 3 people who believes the agreement was cc if you know the recipient you want and it was not to change the reply to address. One person believes it was to change the reply-to address. Anyone else who thought that was the agreement?
>
> Only CC: Animesh, Alex, Brett
> Change reply-to: Sheng
>
> --Alex
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Animesh Chaturvedi
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:52 AM
>> To: Alex Huang; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCE] cloudstack-dev mailing list has stripped "Reply-to"
>> header
>>
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:13 PM
>> > To: Sheng Yang; Brett Porter
>> > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCE] cloudstack-dev mailing list has stripped "Reply-
>> to"
>> > header
>> >
>> > The current behavior is not the one I've signed up for. Maybe I
>> misunderstood
>> > what was being said myself. I agree with Brett. I thought the idea was
>> people
>> > can cc people directly if they know who they want to get the attention of
>> but
>> > the mailing list is still the reply-to address. You are still responsible for the
>> > topics and tags you're interested in.
>> > This convention would have made it easier to filter tags and for any mail
>> that
>> > cced you to a folder. The recipient should still scan mail subjects without
>> tags
>> > occasionally but they don't have to worry about missing emails because
>> they
>> > know full well that if something needs your attention the sender would
>> have
>> > cced you.
>> >
>> > As the way this is implemented, if you and brett replied to an email
>> separately
>> > and I replied to your email, Brett is not included anyways so again it loses
>> any
>> > type of advantage you think this implementation gains.
>> >
>> > --Alex
>> [Animesh>] I was also under the impression that there is no change to
>> default reply to mailing list and we are just agreeing to cc
>> >
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:06 PM
>> > > To: Brett Porter
>> > > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] cloudstack-dev mailing list has stripped "Reply-
>> to"
>> > > header
>> > >
>> > > Hi Brett,
>> > >
>> > > The "reply-to" header is exactly what bothering us. It make us go
>> > > through every thread to check if it's the one we've involved or not.
>> > >
>> > > And, people would able to update their mail client filter to the get
>> > > the result they want when we're using current policy, but they can't
>> > > get the mail they involved when we enforce "reploy-to" policy.
>> > >
>> > > I know it's an enforcement for new member reply in the public, but I
>> > > believe it's better(and not that hard) to be spontaneously.
>> > >
>> > > --Sheng
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > >
>> > > > I hate jumping in after the fact, but I wanted to check if that was
>> > > > the result
>> > > everyone was expecting? What I understood from the previous thread
>> was
>> > > that the community would build up a convention of CCing people to get
>> > > their attention, not that the default reply-to would be changed.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm confused by the claim that the list stripped To/CC, as I can see
>> > > > examples
>> > > where they were retained when used [1] [2]. When I reply-to-all on
>> > > those messages, they are also retained as CCs. Is that not what you were
>> > seeing?
>> > > >
>> > > > The thing that wasn't retained was a CC of the sender if you
>> > > > reply-to-all,
>> > > but a better alternative to that would be for people wishing to have
>> > > that behaviour to CC themselves on mails they send to the list. I know
>> > > at least one person said they didn't want to be CC'd on list mails,
>> > > and they could then choose whether or not that happens.
>> > > >
>> > > > The reason reply-to the list is the default is so that the default
>> > > > mode of
>> > > operation is communicating with the entire community publicly. It is
>> > > probably most helpful to newer members of the list that aren't yet
>> > > familiar with the conventions. This change will particularly trip up
>> > > those that are new to the list, but familiar with other ASF lists
>> > > where reply-to is predominantly set. If you intend to continue with
>> > > the change, you may want to consider adding a message trailer that
>> > > reminds readers of the difference, and points them to the mailing list
>> > guidelines.
>> > > >
>> > > > Cheers,
>> > > > Brett
>> > > >
>> > > > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cloudstack-
>> > >
>> dev/201302.mbox/raw/%3CCA+96GG4YVnrYBjMy4yRQwtpqZLKLYeb39n1kq
>> > > WCf06Yswx_23w@mail.gmail.com%3E
>> > > > [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cloudstack-
>> > > dev/201302.mbox/raw/%3C20130205083909.GC5795@cloud-2.local%3E
>> > > >
>> > > > On 06/02/2013, at 8:44 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Hi all,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Based on the discussion in
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/9216 ,
>> > > >> I've requested Infra team to disable the list from adding a
>> > > >> reply-to header pointing to the list, which means, from now on,
>> > > >> every thread you participated, would keep you in the thread, by
>> > > >> sending mail to you directly(when others are "replying all").
>> > > >>
>> > > >> So there is one new rule need to be emphasized: Do remember to
>> > > >> reply
>> > > all.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I've updated the mailing list guide line to include:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> <quote>
>> > > >> Always use "Reply to All", to keep everyone and mailing list in the
>> > > >> thread. Don't be afraid to make a correction if you used "Reply" to
>> > > >> single people involved by mistake.
>> > > >> </quote>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I hope this movement would make the communication more effective.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> PS: you may want to update your mailing list filter, and set your
>> > > >> mail client's to "Reply All" by default.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --Sheng
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Brett Porter
>> > > > brett@apache.org
>> > > > http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
>> > > > http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
>> > > > http://twitter.com/brettporter
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >