4 Mar
2017
4 Mar
'17
8:40 a.m.
For what it's worth, I'm OK with it too. It correctly shows that this is a message
relayed by a list sent from a person. I can easily choose whether I want to respond to the
list or to the person or both, I had to make that choice before anyhow. If bounces are
fixed that's great.
Marc
On Mar 4, 2017, at 12:40 AM, jim stephens via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 3/3/2017 11:38 PM, Christian Corti via cctalk
wrote:
Thunderbird is putting in the list with the person in the Reply-To being
an additional recipient in the To:
I have not bothered stripping that extra.
The via ctalk is useful as a target for filtering the traffic. For some reason there is
leakage of detected emails on google. It is perhaps due to prior mentioned non conforming
emails of some sort, don't know, their filtering sucks.
But it may be that that will allow me to catch more if not all of the cctalk traffic in
gmail.
I'm subscribed three times for archival purposes. I read via an email subscription
that ends up in a Thunderbird file via pop3 from that server. Never misses with the email
rule.
I wanted an outside the building forget it archive I could peruse, so created a
subscription into my gmail account. That one is leaking about 1 to 5 messages a week
using the same rule as Thunderbird, which is based on email to / from etc.
And a third subscription goes to an account on a server which pulls everything via
fetchmail. That subscription has nothing but Cctalk on it. i have it as my main archive
if all else fails. (and Thunderbird is getting flaky, and has failed).
If the via cctalk stays, I'll try looking for that. I had asked jay eons ago about a
[cctalk] prepend on the subject and his and others opinions was that that was not
desirable. However it always works on all lists I have for filtering. Maybe putting it
in the from will be unobtrusive enough people will put up with it, and maybe Google's
filtering won't suck with a rule hitting that field.
thanks
jim On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Jules Richardson wrote:
Thanks to both of you. I came back to cctalk after not checking it for a few days, and
wondered what the %$#^ was going on, with every message showing with cctalk as the
"from" field.
I'm another one who dislikes the new system. It would be much better if the Reply-To
field did *not* contain the sender's email address because when I reply to a message,
I use the Reply-To field (of course) and have to delete the extra line because I want to
reply to the list and *not* privately to the sender. So either the sender's address
should be in the
From field or in a new header field, e.g.
List-Original-Sender or
something like that.
For now I have set up a procmail rule to strip the "via cctalk" from the
From field because this is ugly and redundant.
Christian