Re: Reply to list [was: Different key maps in different dired buffers]

[Bob Proulx]

Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Bob Proulx writes:
> > Because the bug reporting lists are open and need to include the
> > original sender this carries over to other lists too. Like this
> > help-gnu-emacs list. Should it require people to be subscribed?
> > That is more of a gray area since it isn't a bug reporting list.
> > But people writing for help are almost the same as bug
> > reporters. So by default help lists get the same treatment as bug
> > lists.
> 
> There should not be any such requirements - just the web form "input
> your data here, verify that you are human, wait for a mail, input
> the code and come back" all that makes my stomach turn.

What web form?  This is a mailing list.  There isn't any web form.
One sends email using your MUA mail user agent.  That could be any of
emacs, gnus, mutt, mailx, and so on and so forth.  Could be anything.
Which could include a web form is one if talking about Gmail or
Gmane.  But those are clearly web mail interfaces.

> Unless I'm desperate for help (like with the GMT - Generic Mapping
> Tools - they only have a forum) I turn around when I'm asked to do
> that, rather than to do it.

Me too.  At least for bug reporting systems such as Google Code which
required me to sign up for a Google account in order to post a bug
report.  And so I walked away from the code rather than do so.

> > But what about discussion lists? At some point maintainers of
> > individual projects may state a policy for their own project. And
> > so there isn't a 100% uniform policy across all of the mailing
> > lists.  Some lists.{non,}gnu.org lists are one way and some
> > another way.
> 
> People shouldn't be so petty about their projects! Projects are
> great fun and sometimes useful but they shouldn't be a secluded
> brotherhood "we know what it is about" than shuns the darkness of
> the night...

Mine was a statement of fact.  That is simply the way things currently
are.  It is rather a federalist system like the US government.  That
which is not required globally by GNU is left to the discretion of the
individual project maintainers.  Because this isn't a global GNU
Project policy it is allowed to be overridden by individual project
maintainers.  Which is why it isn't 100% uniform.

> > I would hate to annoy them with a second copy.
> 
> It is not that annoying.

It is annoying.

Is this a good time to note that I can tell you are using the
newsgroup interface.  Which comes through the gnu.emacs.help
newsgroup.  Is gatewayed by email to the mailing list.  And therefore
I assume is incapable of CC'ing the original poster who is not
subscribed?  This is a good example of one of the imperfections of the
loosely combined systems.  The original poster would need a reply-all
but coming through the newsgroup it is (IIRC) impossible to do this.
Which is one of the reasons I wish the mailing lists were NOT
gatewayed to the newsgroups.  The two are different things.  Trying to
tie them together cannot be 100% perfect.  But it has been this way
for many years.

> With Gnus and mail splitting, you can get away with the extra mail
> like this:

I am not a gnus user.

>     (setq nnmail-split-methods
>           '(
>             ("mail.ml-ooa" 
> "\\(To\\|Cc\\):.*\\(emacs-w3m@namazu.org\\|help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org\\|gnuplot-info@lists.sourceforge.net\\)")
>             ("mail.misc"   "")) )

The canonical mailing list header to identify mailing lists is the
List-ID header.  Not the To header.  Mailman uses X-BeenThere which is
okay for Mailman but doesn't exist with other mailing list management
software and therefore isn't standard like List-Id.

> Some people may say, the best way to do mailing lists is with Gnus
> and Gmane, which turns them into newsgroups in all essence. And
> those people might have good cause to say that...

Many people do prefer Newsgroups or Gmane.  Gmane is not really a
newsgroup.  Although it has created a newsgroup-like interface.  Gmane
is still sending email.  It is more like a centralized webmail system.

> >>> I don't understand why people think "recipient might get two
> >>> copies" is worse than "recipient might get no copies".
> >>> Especially when the former issue is trivially avoided by Mailman
> >>> or MUA duplication suppression.
> >>>
> >> I fully agree.
> >
> > I completely disagree.
> >
> > Mailman duplication suppression is mostly non-functional for this
> > issue.
> 
> What about my solution - does that work? (OK, not everyone uses
> Gnus.)

I have no idea as I am not a Gnus user.  So that won't work for me.

I have spent a lot of time devising various procmail related
processes.  All of them have pros and cons.  I have tried many things
over the years.  In the end there isn't any perfect solution.

> Well, obviously we should try to make it as pleasant as possible for
> our users. On the other hand, to get two copies of help isn't a
> problem! If people hit the ceiling in frustration because of that
> perhaps they should take a leave from computers and do Buddhism for
> half a year, and then come back...

On that I agree.  Which is why you haven't seen complaints from me
about it.  But it does annoy me enough to discuss it. :-)

> > And so we have an imperfect system that we simply have to learn to
> > live with regardless of the problems. Even with the problems it is
> > much better than a web forum.
> 
> Indeed. Tho there can be a gateway in between that as well -

Indeed there are many interfaces already in existence.

> the future of computing is interface-agnostic!

Of that I am not so sure.  As time went by the typical interface all
looked like a web page.  But now I read blogs saying the web interface
is dead and that it all looks like an app with a touch screen.  We
shall see.

> Why not have the exact same material accessible as a mailing list,
> as a Gmane newsgroup, as a Usenet newsgroup, as a web forum, and as

We do already have all of those things.  Those are all different.  And
the seams between are not completely smooth between them.

> a Facebook whatever-they-call-it! This isn't hard to do, well, not
> impossible anyway. (With Facebook politics may be a problem.)

Facebook has a lot of non-free problems.  I would not recommend
expanding our free libre discussion onto that non-free platform.  It
would prevent many people from participating.

> Recall there is already gnu-emacs-help (the listbot), there is
> gmane.emacs.help (Gmane), and there is gnu.emacs.help (Usenet).

And unless I am mistaken I believe all of those already exist and are
all gatewayed to the same mailing list.

> Is there a "GNU web forum" software? On Usenet, there is
> rec.bicycles.tech - and here is the same thing, as a web forum!
>     http://www.cyclebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8

Yes.  There are many.  Gmane is a good example.  And also all of the
web based newsgroup readers of which I am not familiar.

Bob