test-drb February 2000

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

162 participants
585 discussions

regarding the reply address on the list....

by allisonp＠world.std.com

I had to edit the header again, or this reply would have gone to Eric. I checked what the mailer(RFDmail) at home does... Same thing it did before. The last FROM: address it sees is the assumed reply address. Oh well. Allison

24 years, 5 months

regarding the reply address on the list....

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<I'm not sure what you mean, here. RFC 822 specifies that the Reply-To: <is to be set by the originator, but the rest of your post seems to <suggest that majordomo should change it. Could you clarify? < < -Rich Majordomo is the originator when we are talking mailing list. If you want replies to stay on list classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org (aka majordomo) should be the target address. Since I've edited the header the only reply to address should be Classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org and the poster, me. Allison

24 years, 5 months

Sony SMC-70 floppy disks

by ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 2436 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20000204/d97ee4b3/at…

24 years, 5 months

IMPORTANT PLEASE READ

by west＠tseinc.com

I can't believe I heard someone say just go back to the old software. With the level of expertise of the people on this list, I should *NOT* have to say the following, but I'm apparently going to have to - PLEASE READ THIS: Majordomo is perfectly capable of making the list work just the way it always did. Period. It is not an issue of the list software forcing the configuration this way. It is not an issue with the host system. It is simply a configuration issue which can be easily changed. It can be done any way the folks here want it done and will work just as well as it always did. The problem I'm having is this: I am a relative newcomer to this list (about the last 12 months perhaps). I was not around when this list was started. As such, I have no knowledge as to if this list is owned by Derek and thus he has total sayso or if everything was always done by group concensus or what. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly - to this date I still have no idea if this is correct or not) that Derek ran the list. Please imagine my position. Everyone is saying do it one way or another and I don't know if I'm supposed to go with whatever Derek says or if I'm supposed to be listening and counting votes. I'm stuck in the middle because a fair number of folks aren't happy. I haven't received any email from Derek for several days so I don't know what should be done. I CAN do whatever should be done but SOMEONE has to tell me definitively what to do. My personal preference at this point is to change the configuration so that it works as it did on u.washington.edu. and we can always discuss the merits of doing it a different way later. That would be easy to do and I can do it right now. But there's the rub - if I go do that right now and make the reply-to stuff work the way it did am I stepping on Derek's toes? Or am I ignoring the will of the group? I would greatly appreciate it if someone could just authoritatively say "do it this way". I offered to do this free of charge and I have no problem with that at all. I just don't know who to listen to. Somebody educate me on this please. Jay West

24 years, 5 months

regarding the reply address on the list....

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Feb 3, 18:00, Hans Franke wrote: > So here's my ME-TOO-NOT-LIKE-THE-NEW mail: > Last but not least, it's the RFC 822 way - and standards are the > only real chance to go along. Except that mailing lists are not what RFC 822 defined "Reply-to:" for. Its primary purpose is quite different; it's to force a reply to a valid address when the sender's "From:" is not valid. Quote: "The "Reply-To" field is added by the originator" The RFC 822 method would be to set the "From:" field to "classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org" , and set the "Sender:" field to the name of the person who originated the message (which is exactly the opposite to what majordomo is doing, I notice, but that's perfectly legitimate). -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

24 years, 5 months

regarding the reply address on the list....INTERESTING

by ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 3332 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20000203/78f0428e/at…

24 years, 5 months

Sony SMC-70 floppy disks

by jmd＠infinet.com

Hi all........ Good to see the list back again...... Recently I picked up a Sony SMC-70 with CP/M for Sony on floppy disks. I have recreated what the original owner had by purchasing the same model monitor and using his cable to connect the computer to the monitor. This is not the OEM monitor (anybody know what was?) but this setup worked for him. When I turn on the computer it scans for the floppy in a:, b: and then pauses and comes back to a: and reads the disk for about 12 seconds. Nothing more happens. There is no display on the screen. If I leave the a: drive empty and have *any* floppy in b: the computer scans a:, then b: goes back to b: for a couple of seconds then begins to beep until I put a floppy in a:. Still nothing on the screen. There is a switch on the side that has 3 options: OFF DISK ROM I have tried all three with no output to screen. Things I have done. 1) Double checked the pinouts against the drawing I was given. 2) I have tried the cable that connects to a B/W port on the box. I connect this to video on the monitor. 3) I have tested the monitor. I know it works in TV and video mode, but have no way to test for RGB. Which is how I am connecting. I am wondering if the floppies may have gone bad. (There are 4 disks labeled CP/M 2.2 and one also says Sony CP/M 2.2) They have been laying around for several years I think. If this is a possibility does anyone have known good floppies? thanks for any info jeff duncan

24 years, 5 months

regarding the reply address on the list....

by Philip.Belben＠powertech.co.uk

>> >> The best text on the subject i've seen is ``Reply-To'' Munging Considered >> Harmful by Chip Rosenthal. >> >> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > > And the rebuttle: http://www.metasystema.org/reply-to-useful.mhtml > > I personally like Reply-To: set to the mailing list. All the lists I'm on > are set up that way and there have been no problems that I could see (yes, > you see the occasional private message sent but it's not that big a > problem). Hello again everyone! Good to be back! I have read both the above web articles. I'd like to cast my vote in favour of REPLY-TO: == THE LIST Why? 1. I don't want to receive two messages when someone replies to me and the list 2. With the old system, if someone forgot to change the header, there was a spurious message, which I deleted. Some people might object to the waste of bandwidth, but it merely gave me one extra message to delete. With the new system, if someone forgets to change the header, the information doesn't reach the list. This causes a bigger waste of bandwidth, because you get more people answering the same question, not having seen each other's replies. And it stifles discussion, because replies-to-replies often never get generated (and these are sometimes the most useful). So the new method gives less info to the list for more use of bandwidth. IMHO, not good. I am on several lists, of which about half work the old way (reply to the list by default). This is very convenient on all of them. Of the others, on the one where I have asked questions I have received substantially the same reply privately from several people, but the discussion hasn't borne fruit on the list. Just my two penn'orth... Philip. PS I almost forgot to edit the addressees of this one... ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. Power Technology Centre, Ratcliffe-on-Soar, Nottingham, NG11 0EE, UK Tel: +44 (0)115 936 2000 http://www.powertech.co.uk **********************************************************************

24 years, 5 months

regarding the reply address on the list....INTERESTING

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Feb 3, 21:50, Tony Duell wrote: > > The reasons you give for wishing to change back are the reasons I wish > > things to stay as they are now. I hit "Reply to All" and the reply goes to > > you, and to the list. I hit "Reply", and only you get the reply. I can > > Ah, but that doesn't work properly if you're replying to a message that > somebody else has already group-replied to. > > Supposing you post to classiccmp, and I group-reply. The message is now > going to classiccmp@... _and you_. Suppose Philip Belben then > group-replies to the message. It now has you, me, and the list as > addresses. Then Megan (say) group-replies to that. Before long, the > header contains the address of every 'regular' here. And we all get > things twice. > > The only ways for me to reply to the list _only_ seem to be : You missed one: "reply-all" and remove the original author's address. It obviously depends on the mailer(s) involved. With the one I use nearly all the time (zmail under Unix), if I hit "reply all" then both the list and original author addresses appear in the "To:" header, and because of the way that's presented by this particular mailer, it's easy for me to remove the one I don't want (two keystrokes). However, if I reply to a followup that someone else has already responded to, and that message has the list address in the "Cc:" instead of the "To:" header, zmail keeps it in the "Cc:" and it means two more keystrokes to fix. I can do exactly the same thing in BSD Mail but it take an extra keystroke or two. And I apologise not always practising what I preach, i.e. for sending 3 extra copies of an earlier followup :-( -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

24 years, 5 months

IBM card punches (was Re: Keydisc?)

by ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 780 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20000203/0034fc62/at…

24 years, 5 months

← Newer
1
...
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

test-drb February 2000