28 Feb
2017
28 Feb
'17
1:23 p.m.
OK, it's official. I rarely criticize mail interfaces, because they're usually
mostly innocuous. However, today's change makes life a lot more difficult.
In the past, it was simple to direct a reply to an individual instead of to the
list because the originator's address was right there in the From: header. As
of today, the list address is substituted for that, so that it is impossible to
respond privately unless you happen to have a bunch of old messages archived and
the person to whom you want to respond is someone who has written previously.
Is this a conscious choice, or a configurable with a different default setting
in a new mail system than was previously in place? However it came to be, it
greatly diminishes communications quality (IMAO).
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer
Living Computers: Museum + Labs
2245 1st Avenue S
Seattle, WA 98134
mailto:RichA at LivingComputers.org
http://www.LivingComputers.org/
28 Feb
28 Feb
1:50 p.m.
Is this a conscious choice, or a configurable with a
different
default setting in a new mail system than was previously in place?
However it came to be, it greatly diminishes communications quality
(IMAO).
You can blame me for the change to the way the From: header is handled.
The purpose of this change is to try to solve the mass bounce problem.
Actually, you should really blame the folks responsible for DKIM, SPF,
ADSP, and the like. The designs of those systems, which purport to
reduce spam, pretty much completely fail to consider the concept and
operation of mailing lists.
It may be possible to tune the content of the Reply-To field. I'll have
a look.
De
2:06 p.m.
When I hit "reply" I get both the originator's email and the lists email in
my 'to' field. I can simply delete the list when I want to only reply to the
originator.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Boone via
cctalk
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 4:50 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: I hate the new mail system
Is this a conscious choice, or a configurable with a
different > default setting in a new mail system than was previously in place?
However it came to be, it greatly diminishes communications quality > (IMAO).
You can blame me for the change to the way the From: header is handled.
The purpose of this change is to try to solve the mass bounce problem.
Actually, you should really blame the folks responsible for DKIM, SPF, ADSP, and the like.
The designs of those systems, which purport to reduce spam, pretty much completely fail
to consider the concept and operation of mailing lists.
It may be possible to tune the content of the Reply-To field. I'll have a look.
De
2:54 p.m.
> [From: changing]
You can blame me for the change to the way the From:
header is
handled. The purpose of this change is to try to solve the mass
bounce problem.
Sounds as though this may be a cure worse than the disease, though.
Actually, you should really blame the folks
responsible for DKIM,
SPF, ADSP, and the like.
Depending on what you mean by "responsible", I might disagree. I don't
blame the people who designed them. Depending on details I don't know,
I blame either the people who adopted them without due consideration
for their side effects or the people who chose a provider configured
inappropriately for their desired use. (My guess from the outside is
that the former is closer to appropriate here.)
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
3:18 p.m.
FWIW, reply and reply all in Gmail web interface now lists both
addresses (originator and mailing list). I don't know if this is a
change again.
Also, I find it somewhat funny in a bizarre way that people on this
list who have experience with all kinds of systems, all kinds of user
interfaces and many generations of machines (computers and otherwise)
can complain over a little thing like this change. (Bikeshed?)
Funny, now I suddenly feel a lot older than my fifty one years.
HAND,
--
Regards,
Torfinn Ingolfsen
3:32 p.m.
On 02/28/2017 03:18 PM, Torfinn Ingolfsen via cctalk wrote:
FWIW, reply and reply all in Gmail web interface now
lists both
addresses (originator and mailing list). I don't know if this is a
change again.
Also, I find it somewhat funny in a bizarre way that people on this
list who have experience with all kinds of systems, all kinds of
user interfaces and many generations of machines (computers and
otherwise) can complain over a little thing like this change.
(Bikeshed?)
I can deal with the new format pretty well, but for one aspect, which is
very annoying.
I use Thunderbird as my email reader. In the past, the "From" field
displayed in the message summary would tell you who sent the message to
the list. It no longer does--it's all "CCtalk".
That makes separating the grain from the chaff a lot more difficult in
my case.
If anyone has a workaround for Thunderbird, I'm all ears.
--Chuck
3:40 p.m.
Well I am using Thunderbird 45.7.1 and I see this "Chuck Guzis via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>" as "From" in your message.
Paul.
On 2017-02-28 7:32 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 02/28/2017 03:18 PM, Torfinn Ingolfsen via cctalk
wrote:
FWIW, reply and reply all in Gmail web interface
now lists both
addresses (originator and mailing list). I don't know if this is a
change again.
Also, I find it somewhat funny in a bizarre way that people on this
list who have experience with all kinds of systems, all kinds of
user interfaces and many generations of machines (computers and
otherwise) can complain over a little thing like this change.
(Bikeshed?)
I can deal with the new format pretty well, but for one aspect, which
is
very annoying.
I use Thunderbird as my email reader. In the past, the "From" field
displayed in the message summary would tell you who sent the message to
the list. It no longer does--it's all "CCtalk".
That makes separating the grain from the chaff a lot more difficult in
my case.
If anyone has a workaround for Thunderbird, I'm all ears.
--Chuck
4:08 p.m.
On 02/28/2017 03:40 PM, Paul Berger wrote:
Well I am using Thunderbird 45.7.1 and I see this
"Chuck Guzis via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>" as "From" in your message.
Hmmm, this is very puzzling. Your message does indeed show up as being
from "Paul Berger", by the message you
replied to shows up as being from
"CCtalk"
Is someone tweaking the system as we speak?
--Chuck
4:46 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Chuck Guzis via cctalk once stated:
On 02/28/2017 03:40 PM, Paul Berger wrote:
Here are the critical headers from your (Chunk) email:
List-Post: <mailto:cctalk at classiccmp.org>
From: Chuck Guzis via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Reply-To: Chuck Guzis <cclist at ----.com>,
"General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Errors-To: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
Sender: "cctalk" <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org>
The from address is cctalk at classiccomp.org. The reply-to addresses
contains your (Chuck) email address (blanked out) in addition to the cctalk
address. An email will use the reply-to address, but I could see an email
client using the list-post address when replying (since that informs the
email client that this email from a mailing list).
So here we have From: munging (that's a twist!) and Reply-To: munging but
by adding an address instead of outright replacement (intresting solution to
munging [1][2]). So when you (not Chuck) hit reply, it goes to your (Chuck)
email address and cctalk.
-spc (Who runs his own email server ... )
[1] "Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
[2] Reply-To Munging Considered Useful
http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html
Well I am using Thunderbird 45.7.1 and I see this
"Chuck Guzis via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>" as "From" in your message.
Hmmm, this is very puzzling. Your message does indeed show up as being
from "Paul Berger", by the message you replied to shows up as being from
"CCtalk"
Is someone tweaking the system as we speak? 
1:51 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Rich
Alderson via cctalk
Sent: 28 February 2017 21:23
To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: I hate the new mail system
OK, it's official. I rarely criticize mail interfaces, because they're
usually
mostly innocuous. However, today's change makes
life a lot more
difficult.
In the past, it was simple to direct a reply to an individual instead of
to the
list
because the originator's address was right there
in the From: header. As
of
today, the list address is substituted for that, so
that it is impossible
to
respond privately unless you happen to have a bunch of
old messages
archived and the person to whom you want to respond is someone who has
written previously.
"reply all" seems to put the original sender and the list in the
"to:"
field..
Is this a conscious choice, or a configurable with a
different default
setting in
a new mail system than was previously in place?
However it came to be, it
greatly diminishes communications quality (IMAO).
I suspect its to do with SPF records where domains publish a list of servers
authorised to send mails "from" a certain domain in the DNS.
Leaving the sender in gets the list server black-listed and the mail will be
bounced by the many servers that check SPF records.
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer
Living Computers: Museum + Labs
2245 1st Avenue S
Seattle, WA 98134
Dave
mailto:RichA at LivingComputers.org
http://www.LivingComputers.org/
2:06 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Dave Wade G4UGM via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
At least in Gmail's web interface, I don't see reply and reply all having
any difference here; they both put both addresses in the To:. I'll have to
check how this works in an IMAP client later.
But I for one welcome our new non-bounce-happy email system! :D
--
Eric Christopherson
-----Original
Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Rich
Alderson via cctalk
Sent: 28 February 2017 21:23
To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: I hate the new mail system
OK, it's official. I rarely criticize mail interfaces, because they're
usually
mostly innocuous. However, today's change
makes life a lot more
difficult.
In the past, it was simple to direct a reply to an individual instead of
to the
list
because the originator's address was right
there in the From: header. As
of
today, the list address is substituted for that,
so that it is impossible
to
respond privately unless you happen to have a
bunch of old messages
archived and the person to whom you want to respond is someone who has
written previously.
"reply all" seems to put the original sender and the list in the
"to:"
field..
Is this a conscious choice, or a configurable
with a different default
setting in
a new mail system than was previously in place?
However it came to be,
it
greatly diminishes communications quality
(IMAO).
I suspect its to do with SPF records where domains publish a list of
servers
authorised to send mails "from" a certain domain in the DNS.
Leaving the sender in gets the list server black-listed and the mail will
be
bounced by the many servers that check SPF records. 
2:26 p.m.
On 28/02/2017 22:06, Eric Christopherson via cctalk wrote:
At least in Gmail's web interface, I don't see
reply and reply all having
any difference here; they both put both addresses in the To:. I'll have to
check how this works in an IMAP client later.
It may vary in different clients, but in Thunderbird on my system (UW
IMAP) "Reply" replies to what's in the "Reply To" header, normally
cctalk and the original sender; "Reply List" replies just to cctalk; and
"Reply All" differs in that it replies to cctalk, the original sender,
and others quoted in the body.
So for this particular message, "Reply All" would include Dave Wade as
well as Eric.
--
Pete
Pete Turnbull
2:11 p.m.
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Dave Wade G4UGM via
cctalk
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:52 PM
"reply all" seems to put the original sender
and the list in the "to:"
field..
Thanks, Dave, Dennis, and js.
I had no reason to reply (all) to any of these messages, and the text in the
From: header is what is displayed by the mail system in use at the museum;
real headers are only visible by "opening" the message and choosing an obscure
function on the "ribbon" (and they're not displayed well then). It used to
be,
of course, that in order to reply privately, I had to hit a Reply button and
edit the resulting To: header manually; I still will have to, but now it's to
remove something rather than substitute it.
Sorry for the noise.
Rich
2:22 p.m.
On 28/02/2017 21:23, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
OK, it's official. I rarely criticize mail
interfaces, because
they're usually mostly innocuous. However, today's change makes life
a lot more difficult.
Actually, I rather like it, because in my mail client (Thunderbird) it
shows as "From: Classic Computers <cctalk at classiccmp.org>".
In the past, it was simple to direct a reply to an
individual instead
of to the list because the originator's address was right there in
the From: header. As of today, the list address is substituted for
that, so that it is impossible to respond privately unless you happen
to have a bunch of old messages archived and the person to whom you
want to respond is someone who has written previously.
But the "Reply To:" header lists both cctalk and the original sender's
address, which any mail client should honour, so all you should need to
do is remove the cctalk address (Rich will get two copies of this
because I didn't remove either address).
--
Pete
Pete Turnbull
6:44 p.m.
On 02/28/2017 03:23 PM, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
OK, it's official. I rarely criticize mail
interfaces, because they're usually
mostly innocuous. However, today's change makes life a lot more difficult.
In the past, it was simple to direct a reply to an individual instead of to the
list because the originator's address was right there in the From: header. As
of today, the list address is substituted for that, so that it is impossible to
respond privately unless you happen to have a bunch of old messages archived and
the person to whom you want to respond is someone who has written previously.
Is this a conscious choice, or a configurable with a different default setting
in a new mail system than was previously in place? However it came to be, it
greatly diminishes communications quality (IMAO).
Your email is still coming through in the Reply to: header
line. I looked at the full headers.
In fact, Thunderbird is going to send a direct email to you
at your LCM address without my doing
anything.
Jon
1 Mar
1 Mar
1:47 a.m.
On 28 February 2017 at 21:23, Rich Alderson via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
OK, it's official. I rarely criticize mail
interfaces, because they're
usually
mostly innocuous. However, today's change makes life a lot more difficult.
In the past, it was simple to direct a reply to an individual instead of
to the
list because the originator's address was right there in the From:
header. As
of today, the list address is substituted for that, so that it is
impossible to
respond privately...
Users.
--
Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems: "The Future Begins Tomorrow"
Visit us at: http://www.yoyodyne-propulsion.net
--------
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -- Jonathan Swift
2636
days inactive
2637
days old
15 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
cclist＠sydex.com -
dave.g4ugm＠gmail.com -
drb＠msu.edu -
echristopherson＠gmail.com -
elson＠pico-systems.com -
john＠yoyodyne-propulsion.net -
mouse＠Rodents-Montreal.ORG -
pete＠dunnington.plus.com -
phb.hfx＠gmail.com -
RichA＠livingcomputers.org -
spc＠conman.org -
tingox＠gmail.com -
w2hx＠w2hx.com