Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 09:33:55 +0200 From: Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@rocketmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd vs. netbsd Message-ID: <da07919d94cfbbe8846eeceec5679eae3e3a2a0c.camel@rocketmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20200611091449.383e1d83@archlinux> References: <171506d5-19aa-359e-c21d-f07257c52ebd@freenetMail.de> <62d10000-e068-922e-23bd-f7a61e7a4e89@anatoli.ws> <ACE27C81-9437-41D6-BBD4-FA7A7B791428@kicp.uchicago.edu> <6a4f6a15-ec43-03f6-1a41-a109e445f026@anatoli.ws> <f667e8f9-b279-a3ce-3fc4-224ba17f4bbb@kicp.uchicago.edu> <00225a04-237d-9051-9aea-12c192106a20@anatoli.ws> <373EDB20-C750-42E2-A41B-EA61F6E49807@kicp.uchicago.edu> <20200609120136.00005b3c@seibercom.net> <2393a1e0-b073-950a-78be-9f57d8e9934b@anatoli.ws> <e1f6623a-3b3c-a43e-446a-d41f20f69418@kicp.uchicago.edu> <20200610063555.00003707@seibercom.net> <82F57D0D-E0EC-49F7-824E-20A296C9F549@kicp.uchicago.edu> <250b853a-b436-0e99-b05c-9abd6b6019ef@panix.com> <20200611070630.2cb42786.freebsd@edvax.de> <EA869B95-9D98-4ECC-9371-C57A0035BC32@kreme.com> <20200611091449.383e1d83@archlinux>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 09:14 +0200, Ralf Mardorf via freebsd-questions wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 23:13:10 -0600, @lbutlr wrote: > > On 10 Jun 2020, at 23:06, Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> wrote: > > > However, I assume that the use of "reply to all" is so convenient it > > > is often preferred to "reply to mailing list", that's why sometimes > > > replies are send "twice"=E2=80=A6 =20 > >=20 > > A smart MUA (is there one) you have a reply button that replied sender > > if the messages was directly to you, replied to list if the message > > was from a list, and made you hit a difficult chorded sequence of 47 > > keys in precise order in less than 4 seconds to reply to all. >=20 > It's not just a question of a "smart" MUA. >=20 > There are two different "smart" approaches. Depending on mailing > list settings, formatted headers of the user and the wanted result, both > have got pros and cons. >=20 > Either "reply all" or "reply" could invoke a mailing list reply in a > smart way. >=20 > However, it depends on the wanted result and the headers of the sender > and kept or overridden headers by the mailing list. >=20 > Btw. the mailing list never sends 2 replies. One reply is from the > list, the other directly from the sender. It's even possible to disable > duplicated messages by mailman, but then you'll receive a reply without > mailing list header, IOW just the reply from the sender. IOW it's a > cheap workaround, it's not smart. >=20 > A "smart" solutions always providing the mailing list header is > possible, but hard to achieve. It only works if the common goal is > defined and all pull together. Depending on the goal, the mailing list header is unneeded and can't be provided. Btw. the goal could not only be 'if a do p' and 'if b do q' ... unfortunately there are more things to consider ... you might want to do 'p' or 'q' only, but 'if a' and 'if b' might require more logic such as 'if a and if y' or 'if a and if z' ... > It requires agreement regarding the content of the Reply-To and > From headers. >=20 > A problem could be that some MUAs usually only provide > one of the two options, but it's required that depending on the goal > the user can chose between "reply all" or "reply" to invoke a > mailing list reply.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?da07919d94cfbbe8846eeceec5679eae3e3a2a0c.camel>