[PD-ot] moved to pd-ot, was: Re: [PD] Copies of mails. Why?

[Christian Klippel]

hello,

moved the discussion to the ot list, hope thats ok ....

Am Mittwoch 31 August 2005 23:09 schrieb Stefan Tiedje:
> Christian Klippel wrote:
> > for that, this issue is a PEBKAC.
>
> What is a PEBKAC?
>

http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/P/PEBKAC.html

> > i can tell my mail client to reply to:
> > r)eply to sender
> > l)ist
> > a)ll
>
> everybody knows that after the first time the missing reply-to leads to
> confusion.
>

...which can be cleared by explaining the situation ......

> > depending just on which of these 3 keys i press.
> > instead of somesone fiddling with the list, the user should learn his
> > e-mail client and simply press the right key!
>
> I am dumb per definition, I neither want to learn, nor remember three

are you sure? how did you manage to use a computer, let alone pd, if you dont 
want to learn?

how much do you had to learn to actually use you computer? do you still stick 
to wire-bound, 60's telephones, or have you learned to use a mobile? you did? 
and what about the next mobile, which has different menues, etc?

sorry, but "i dont want to learn" just a dumb excuse, becaue we all learn new 
things every day. imagine how the world would look like if everybody doesnt 
want to learn, and refuses to learn .....

> different keystrokes if they are not necessary. Reply is reply is reply.

as you see, they are necessary. and this particular discussion is not only 
limited to this list. there is a reason that a reply-to-list functionality 
exists in the clients.

> I still would always have the freedom of choice for the rare special
> cases. I need my thinking energy for writing music and list replys...
> Its like with cars, if you like to switch gears manually, go for it,
> there is no need to force everybody to switch gears in times of
> automatic gears.
>

so one could say, you either do a mail to a list or to a single person. if you 
want to mail to a list, go for it ;-)

> >>I agree that there might still be different oppinions possible, but the
> >>evidence points to somewhere else...
> >
> > the evidence points to standards that we should apply, and that is to not
> > tweak the reply to field.
>
> The standard, which never has problems and threads like this one, in the
> majority of lists is simply a reply-to munged header. The missing
> reply-to does not work, the reply-to works.

the "missing" reply-to _does_ work, because its not missing, but replies to 
the sender. and for that, a reply-to-list also works! imagine!

> The typical technocratic argument that those who have the correct tool
> and learned background do not have these problems, ignores simply the
> fact that in praxis it doesn't work.

this argument is not technocratic. and you dont need to learn a big 
background. and, it works in the real world. how does it come that with so 
many people subscribed here, there is only a minority that has problems with 
that? the only point i may agree to is about the wrong tool. but that can be 
changed, if there is really interrest.

you know, each time people have to adopt to something new (even if it is 
simple and logical) i hear that stupid argument. you may want to know that i 
have worked for >10 years in tech-support, so i really know how resistant 
people are to accept something new. the simpler the new thing, the bigger the 
refusal. dont ask me why, but it seems that people are pretty happy with 
solving/learning complex new stuff, but refuse to recognize the simple 
things.

> The same confudion will come up again and again, the same discussion
> will be discussed again and again until finally the admins are pissed
> off and place a reply-to ?
>

or until the remaining few people have learned to do it the way most people 
here do it.....

> > imagine:
> >
> > one sets up a autoresponder, like "im in hollidays for 3 weeks now" and
> > you send a mail to the list.
> >
> > with the original header, the sender will get that auto-reply.
> > with a modified header, it may end up on the list instead.
>
> This is the best argument for a reply-to: This guy will send his
> automatic responder all the time to each posting member of the list,
> each member of the list would have to deal with it as soon you write to
> the list! Again lots of useless traffic. (Maybe an event like this would
> convince the admin to munge the header ;-)
>

aha. where, please, is the logic in that?

sending a auto-reply to only the author of a message produces more traffic 
than this auto-reply going to the list and then beeing distributed to all 
subscribers?

> There are programms for list handling which would be able to recognize
> such a beast and automatically keep it away from the list (because it
> would create a loop with always the same content, its easy to
> recognize). This automatic would not be possible without the reply-to in
> the header.
>

exactly, because it doesnt hit the list in the first place!

also, there are online archives from this list, which also would blow-up with 
such messages.

and even recognizing a loop would mean to have that auto-response go to list 
at least once. you can only detect subsequent auto-responses to that. 

and again, that would cause much more traffic each time, as it would do if 
only the original author would get it.

> > i would say, get used to use your email client correctly.
> > just because you are used to simply r)eply to mails, that doesnt mean you
> > can not do a l)isr reply instead......
>
> I am doing it by the way, but it remains uneccessarily inconvenient.
>

if you do it anyways, so wheres the real problem? your client can do it, you 
know how to do it, so what to complain about?

> Stefan

please dont get me wrong, but i just cant stand arguments like "im used to do 
x the way y, and i dont want to know about z." i really dont see the problem 
in using a different key to reply to a list.
hey, after all its even better than to do a reply-all (hey, just another 
keystroke besides the normal reply! so, a reply is not a reply is not a 
reply!) and then delete all the unwanted receipiants afterwards, isnt it?

is it really _that_ hard to press "l" instead of "r" (or whatever key a 
specific client uses for that)? if that is really to hard to learn and adopt 
to, well, i keep that for myself ;-D

greetings,

chris