You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@commons.apache.org by "B. W. Fitzpatrick" <fi...@red-bean.com> on 2002/10/21 06:06:29 UTC
Re: Reply-To munging considered harmful
"Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org> writes:
> Screw the merits.. Its a big pain in the a** to me. Everything else is
> crap. ;-)
Well, we should certainly make sure we don't inconvenience you.
> I have to right click and select "reply to list" which requires me to
> realize that this is the ONLY apache list I'm on that has made such a
> lame derivation from the rest.. .
In your opinion. reorg@apache.org is the first list I have *ever* been
on that munges the reply-to. I've had to get used to it even though I
don't particularly care for.
> Not only that but its wonderful how everyone replies to all and I get 30
> freaking copies by the end of the day. And even lovelier how a
> wonderful list of email addresses is compiled for spammer convenience.
> Sure they can get it anyhow, but you don't have to serve it up with a
> glass of Rotlan Torra for them!
> Having a debate on this is STUPID. There are no merits less two:
I *totally* agree that this is stupid. I thought that we took a vote
on this two weeks ago and the matter was closed, but I guess the vote
will be left open until we munge the sodding reply-to.
> 1. What do most of the other lists use?
> 2. What is one's personal preference? (majority rules)
This is the worst example of bikeshed painting I've seen in a long
time. To hell with deciding what commons is actually for, let's debate
mailing list prefs.
Maybe next we can debate whether emacs is better than vi, Linux is
better than BSD, etc.
-Fitz
Re: Reply-To munging considered harmful
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
"B. W. Fitzpatrick" wrote:
>
> In your opinion. reorg@apache.org is the first list I have *ever* been
> on that munges the reply-to. I've had to get used to it even though I
> don't particularly care for.
considerably more than half the apache lists use it. and that's several dozen.
> > Having a debate on this is STUPID. There are no merits less two:
>
> I *totally* agree that this is stupid. I thought that we took a vote
> on this two weeks ago and the matter was closed, but I guess the vote
> will be left open until we munge the sodding reply-to.
we had a vote amongst the pmc, and the pmc list won't have reply-to set
(much as i personally dislike that answer). the users get to have their
opinions counted.
> This is the worst example of bikeshed painting I've seen in a long
> time. To hell with deciding what commons is actually for, let's debate
> mailing list prefs.
there is no debate, only voting.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Reply-To munging considered harmful
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 06:14:07PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:01:42AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> >...
> > * Disclaimer: I still intend on taunting those who insist on sending me
> > multiple copies of on-list email. :)
>
> Um. Why would you do that? Not like we do it on purpose.
>
> Really.
>
> Trust me. Yah.
>
> :-)
See what I mean! You're all evil!
-aaron
Re: Reply-To munging considered harmful
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:01:42AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>...
> * Disclaimer: I still intend on taunting those who insist on sending me
> multiple copies of on-list email. :)
Um. Why would you do that? Not like we do it on purpose.
Really.
Trust me. Yah.
:-)
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Reply-To munging considered harmful
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> I've already voiced my vote, and even though I was voted down, I'd rather
> see us stick to the vote.
i am interpreting that vote as being for the pmc list, since that's all
who were involved. i feel that the community should be able to set the
standard, or at least be given the opportunity to do so.
> Can we please drop this discussion now and
> get back to making commons a happy pasture* once again? :)
some people may consider the reply-to issue an aspect of whether
they will be happy here or not. i consider it still in scope
for the non-pmc lists.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Reply-To munging considered harmful
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:33:23AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
> Hadn't seen this post yet. I couldn't agree more. Consider this my last
> post in this thread. It's a waste of energy and time.
I've already voiced my vote, and even though I was voted down, I'd rather
see us stick to the vote. Can we please drop this discussion now and
get back to making commons a happy pasture* once again? :)
-aaron
* Disclaimer: I still intend on taunting those who insist on sending me
multiple copies of on-list email. :)
RE: Reply-To munging considered harmful
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: fitz@red-bean.com [mailto:fitz@red-bean.com]
> Sent: 21 October 2002 06:06
>> Having a debate on this is STUPID. There are no merits less two:
>
> I *totally* agree that this is stupid. I thought that we took a vote
> on this two weeks ago and the matter was closed, but I guess the vote
> will be left open until we munge the sodding reply-to.
>
>> 1. What do most of the other lists use?
>> 2. What is one's personal preference? (majority rules)
>
> This is the worst example of bikeshed painting I've seen in a long
> time. To hell with deciding what commons is actually for, let's debate
> mailing list prefs.
>
> Maybe next we can debate whether emacs is better than vi, Linux is
> better than BSD, etc.
Hadn't seen this post yet. I couldn't agree more. Consider this my last
post in this thread. It's a waste of energy and time.
Sander