Request to list owner

[Jorge Bastos]

Hi list owner,



Sorry for this.

Is it possible to change the reply-to in mailman to be the list, and not the
person who replied?

Also the [Dovecot] on the subject would be handy.



Just two things to get better.



Thanks,

[Reindl Harald]

Post by Jorge Bastos
Sorry for this.
Is it possible to change the reply-to in mailman to be the list, and not the
person who replied?

just use "reply to list"

Post by Jorge Bastos
Also the [Dovecot] on the subject would be handy

no - type "yahoo lists DMARC" in Google as well
as the subject header my be DKIM signed

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20141014/fc7b3391/attachment.sig>

[Moritz Augsburger]

Post by Jorge Bastos
Is it possible to change the reply-to in mailman to be the list, and not the
person who replied?

Every good MUA has a possibility for replying to the list. Also read
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Post by Jorge Bastos
Also the [Dovecot] on the subject would be handy.

Nope, I disagree. If you need to filter, there is a header for this:
List-Id: Dovecot Mailing List <dovecot.dovecot.org>

Moritz

[Steve Litt]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:33:55 +0200

Post by Moritz Augsburger

Post by Jorge Bastos
Is it possible to change the reply-to in mailman to be the list,
and not the person who replied?

Every good MUA has a possibility for replying to the list. Also read
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

The preceding link is the opinion of one guy, and is no discussion
ender. He makes up an ugly sounding characterization "munge", and I
counter with the better sounding characterization "discussionize".

A mailing list is meant to produce a whole greater than the sum of the
parts, not a bunch of people whispering privately in each others' ear,
and therefore the default should go back to the mailing list. I'm soooo
tired of seeing Chip Rosenthal's tired rant about reply-to redirection
quoted as if it's something more than one guy's opinion.

For me, personally, the point is moot, because from my Claws-Mail on
Debian Wheezy Linux, both Reply to List and Reply send it back to the
list, and I must use Reply to Sender to send to the sender, which is
the exact behavior I find best for a mailing list.

The original poster (OP) was using MS Outlook. Does anyone know how to
"reply to list" in Outlook? If not, does Thunderbird have a "reply to
list"? If so, the OP could switch to Thunderbird.

Post by Moritz Augsburger

Post by Jorge Bastos
Also the [Dovecot] on the subject would be handy.

List-Id: Dovecot Mailing List <dovecot.dovecot.org>

I've been very pleased with the results ever since I started filtering
mailing lists by List-Id instead of a marker in the subject line. It
keeps everything going to the right mailboxes, even when crossposts are
involved. I use the very versatile procmail for filtering; I'm not sure
the OP's MS Outlook can do that. But, of course, Outlook has much more
serious issues than any of this: I'd recommend the OP use a different
mail client, for the security of his computer.

SteveT

Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance

[Reindl Harald]

Post by Steve Litt
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:33:55 +0200

Post by Moritz Augsburger

Post by Jorge Bastos
Is it possible to change the reply-to in mailman to be the list,
and not the person who replied?

Every good MUA has a possibility for replying to the list. Also read
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

The preceding link is the opinion of one guy, and is no discussion
ender. He makes up an ugly sounding characterization "munge", and I
counter with the better sounding characterization "discussionize".

which happens currently

Post by Steve Litt
A mailing list is meant to produce a whole greater than the sum of the
parts, not a bunch of people whispering privately in each others' ear,
and therefore the default should go back to the mailing list. I'm soooo
tired of seeing Chip Rosenthal's tired rant about reply-to redirection
quoted as if it's something more than one guy's opinion.

not only one guy, you get on many lists a complaint for "reply all",
reply private and so on - to quote another owner of a list about
mailserver software "fix your mailclient"

Post by Steve Litt
For me, personally, the point is moot, because from my Claws-Mail on
Debian Wheezy Linux, both Reply to List and Reply send it back to the
list, and I must use Reply to Sender to send to the sender, which is
the exact behavior I find best for a mailing list.
The original poster (OP) was using MS Outlook. Does anyone know how to
"reply to list" in Outlook? If not, does Thunderbird have a "reply to
list"? If so, the OP could switch to Thunderbird.

surely - and that's why i hate "reply all" because depending on which
copy is faster i get the button enabled or not

Post by Steve Litt

Post by Moritz Augsburger

Post by Jorge Bastos
Also the [Dovecot] on the subject would be handy.

List-Id: Dovecot Mailing List <dovecot.dovecot.org>

I've been very pleased with the results ever since I started filtering
mailing lists by List-Id instead of a marker in the subject line. It
keeps everything going to the right mailboxes, even when crossposts are
involved. I use the very versatile procmail for filtering; I'm not sure
the OP's MS Outlook can do that. But, of course, Outlook has much more
serious issues than any of this: I'd recommend the OP use a different
mail client, for the security of his computer

we are on a *mailserver list* and the server supports sieve

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20141014/feda6cc4/attachment.sig>

[Przemysław Orzechowski]

Post by Steve Litt
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:33:55 +0200

Post by Moritz Augsburger

Post by Jorge Bastos
Is it possible to change the reply-to in mailman to be the list,
and not the person who replied?

Every good MUA has a possibility for replying to the list. Also read
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

The preceding link is the opinion of one guy, and is no discussion
ender. He makes up an ugly sounding characterization "munge", and I
counter with the better sounding characterization "discussionize".
A mailing list is meant to produce a whole greater than the sum of the
parts, not a bunch of people whispering privately in each others' ear,
and therefore the default should go back to the mailing list. I'm soooo
tired of seeing Chip Rosenthal's tired rant about reply-to redirection
quoted as if it's something more than one guy's opinion.
For me, personally, the point is moot, because from my Claws-Mail on
Debian Wheezy Linux, both Reply to List and Reply send it back to the
list, and I must use Reply to Sender to send to the sender, which is
the exact behavior I find best for a mailing list.
The original poster (OP) was using MS Outlook. Does anyone know how to
"reply to list" in Outlook? If not, does Thunderbird have a "reply to
list"? If so, the OP could switch to Thunderbird.

Of course Thunderbird has reply to list option

Post by Steve Litt

Post by Moritz Augsburger

Post by Jorge Bastos
Also the [Dovecot] on the subject would be handy.

List-Id: Dovecot Mailing List <dovecot.dovecot.org>

I've been very pleased with the results ever since I started filtering
mailing lists by List-Id instead of a marker in the subject line. It
keeps everything going to the right mailboxes, even when crossposts are
involved. I use the very versatile procmail for filtering; I'm not sure
the OP's MS Outlook can do that. But, of course, Outlook has much more
serious issues than any of this: I'd recommend the OP use a different
mail client, for the security of his computer.
SteveT
Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance

[Robert Schetterer]

Post by Przemysław Orzechowski
Of course Thunderbird has reply to list option

and if there is no sieve on the server you may define a filter in
Thunderbird, guees its the same with outlook

see pics in

https://sys4.de/de/blog/2014/04/12/thunderbird-filter-list-id/


Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetterer

[Robert Schetterer]

Post by Jorge Bastos
Hi list owner,
Sorry for this.
Is it possible to change the reply-to in mailman to be the list, and not the
person who replied?
Also the [Dovecot] on the subject would be handy.
Just two things to get better.
Thanks,

might brake dkim and dmarc, filter with list-id


Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetterer

[Professa Dementia]

Post by Jorge Bastos
Also the [Dovecot] on the subject would be handy.

The list used to do this. I agree with you, and the matter was debated,
but the list is not a democracy and Timo, as the owner, changed the list
unilaterally.

The problem is that changing the subject conflicts with DKIM. DKIM is a
broken standard for several reasons; it does not have allowances for
mailing lists to add their name to the subject - a very common and
useful practice - and these days spam filters do a far superior job than
DKIM, making it too little, too late. I do not use DKIM and get no
spam. That last spam I got was about 4 months ago, then another 2
months before that. 2 spams over the course of 6 months is pretty good,
and that is without DKIM.

Depending on your mail client, you can set up a filter that detects the
mailing-list headers and adds the name back to the subject line. I do
something similar and it adds back the lost functionality. :-)

Best of luck.

Dem

[Reindl Harald]

Post by Professa Dementia

Post by Jorge Bastos
Also the [Dovecot] on the subject would be handy.

The list used to do this. I agree with you, and the matter was debated,
but the list is not a democracy and Timo, as the owner, changed the list
unilaterally.
The problem is that changing the subject conflicts with DKIM. DKIM is a
broken standard for several reasons; it does not have allowances for
mailing lists to add their name to the subject - a very common and
useful practice - and these days spam filters do a far superior job than
DKIM, making it too little, too late

nonsense because that spamfilters use DKIM and SPF
*too* for their scoring

cat maillog | grep "spamd: result" | grep DKIM | wc -l
12782

/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004000/updates_spamassassin_org
score USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST -100.000
score USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL -7.500
score DKIM_SIGNED 0.1
score DKIM_VALID -0.1
score DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1
score DKIM_VERIFIED 0
score DKIM_POLICY_SIGNALL 0
score DKIM_POLICY_SIGNSOME 0
score DKIM_POLICY_TESTING 0
score DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_LOW 0.001
score DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED 0.001
score DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_HIGH 0.001
score DKIM_ADSP_ALL 0 1.1 0 0.8
score DKIM_ADSP_DISCARD 0 1.8 0 1.8
score DKIM_ADSP_NXDOMAIN 0 0.8 0 0.9
score DKIMDOMAIN_IN_DWL 0 -3.5 0 -3.5
score DKIMDOMAIN_IN_DWL_UNKNOWN 0 -0.01 0 -0.01

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20141014/c7362b30/attachment.sig>

[Moritz Augsburger]

Post by Reindl Harald
nonsense because that spamfilters use DKIM and SPF
*too* for their scoring

Sorry, didn't know that spamasassin is the only available spam filter on
the market.

[Reindl Harald]

Post by Moritz Augsburger

Post by Reindl Harald
nonsense because that spamfilters use DKIM and SPF
*too* for their scoring

Sorry, didn't know that spamasassin is the only available
spam filter on the market

no, but most others work similar and SA works behind the scenes even in
most commercial boxes as one of many filters - the point was that many
people using DKIM for their filtering without even aware

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20141014/f3c862e4/attachment.sig>

[Per Jessen]

Post by Professa Dementia

Post by Jorge Bastos
Also the [Dovecot] on the subject would be handy.

The list used to do this. I agree with you, and the matter was
debated, but the list is not a democracy and Timo, as the owner,
changed the list unilaterally.
The problem is that changing the subject conflicts with DKIM. DKIM is
a broken standard for several reasons; it does not have allowances for
mailing lists to add their name to the subject - a very common and
useful practice

And superfluous too - for list identification, use the List-* headers
instead.

Post by Professa Dementia
- and these days spam filters do a far superior job than DKIM, making
it too little, too late. I do not use DKIM and get no
spam.

I don't use DKIM, and I get loads of spam :-) As always, YMMV.

[Timo Sirainen]

Post by Jorge Bastos
Is it possible to change the reply-to in mailman to be the list, and not the
person who replied?

I've a patched mailman that allows you to set the reply-to headers to your mails, indicating that you want replies only to list. See the "edit options" in http://dovecot.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dovecot

I sometimes (well, nowadays probably too often) reply to mails very late, and I always do reply-to-all then, because there's a good chance that the person who originally sent the mail isn't actively reading Dovecot list and would miss the reply otherwise. Also when I'm in other mailing lists I prefer people to Cc me, because I'm not actively reading any of those lists and I could easily miss the reply.

But people are different and want different things. I don't know if there's any good solution to this. Except maybe if everybody always did reply-to-all and people could start configuring their mail clients in a way to hide the private replies if they don't want to see them.

Post by Jorge Bastos
Also the [Dovecot] on the subject would be handy.

As mentioned, this breaks DKIM. You could create a local Sieve script to add the [Dovecot] subject.

[Jorge Bastos]

Perfect :)

-----Original Message-----
From: dovecot [mailto:dovecot-bounces at dovecot.org] On Behalf Of Timo
Sirainen
Sent: ter?a-feira, 14 de Outubro de 2014 18:08
To: Dovecot Mailing List
Subject: Re: Request to list owner

Post by Jorge Bastos
Is it possible to change the reply-to in mailman to be the list, and
not the person who replied?

I've a patched mailman that allows you to set the reply-to headers to
your mails, indicating that you want replies only to list. See the
"edit options" in http://dovecot.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dovecot
I sometimes (well, nowadays probably too often) reply to mails very
late, and I always do reply-to-all then, because there's a good chance
that the person who originally sent the mail isn't actively reading
Dovecot list and would miss the reply otherwise. Also when I'm in other
mailing lists I prefer people to Cc me, because I'm not actively
reading any of those lists and I could easily miss the reply.
But people are different and want different things. I don't know if
there's any good solution to this. Except maybe if everybody always did
reply-to-all and people could start configuring their mail clients in a
way to hide the private replies if they don't want to see them.

Post by Jorge Bastos
Also the [Dovecot] on the subject would be handy.

As mentioned, this breaks DKIM. You could create a local Sieve script
to add the [Dovecot] subject.

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Die, 2014-10-14 at 09:28 +0100, Jorge Bastos wrote:
[...]

Post by Jorge Bastos
Sorry for this.

Than don't write it.

Post by Jorge Bastos
Is it possible to change the reply-to in mailman to be the list, and not the
person who replied?

Alas, it is possible but not good:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
https://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html

Post by Jorge Bastos
Also the [Dovecot] on the subject would be handy.

That wastes screen space and mail filtering is - in the 21st century -
better done on List-Id and similar headers.

Post by Jorge Bastos
Just two things to get better.

No, much much worse.

Bernd