Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index

webmaster-Kracked_P_P wrote:
On 08/13/2012 07:36 PM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
On 08/12/2012 12:31 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:

this is to inform you that the reply settings on this list have changed
(so-called "Reply to mangling" has been disabled).

So far, e-mails had set a reply-to the mailing list address. In other
words, with any e-mail client, replies to e-mails on the list were
automatically sent directly to the list.

In the past, this lead to two major problems:

1. Several times, people have sent direct replies to the public list,
where deleting them is nearly impossible. I remember at least one case
where confidential information has been sent out that caused lots of
worries for the sender and his employer. This happened because people
hit "reply" and thought it would reply to the sender only.

2. I have heard complaints in the past from people, stating that working
with the non-developer lists of LibreOffice is a pain for them, because
of reply-to mangling, resulting in a lack of communication. This also
led to the fact that numerous tasks were done by the same people, who
needed to spend more and more time, instead of sharing the work burden
with others. While I do not fully believe this argument, there's just
one way to find out...

Therefore, I have applied a change:

Replies to e-mails from the list now only go to the original sender. You either need to use the "reply to all" feature of your e-mail program, or
- preferably - the "reply to list"/"reply to group" feature, which will
direct replies directly to the list.

This is common practice on most mailing lists, and even the default
setting for our mailing list software, so we did not re-invent the wheel
here. Those seeking for details should have a look at

I know we had numerous discussions on this topic in the past, but the
outcome was that roughly 50% were for this change, and 50% refused it,
so I am really sitting between two chairs here, for which I beg for your understanding. On the one hand, those complaining the lists are unusable
with reply-to mangling, on the other hand, those complaining the lists
are unusable without reply-to mangling. Unfortunately, combining those
two, even on a per-recipient basis, is not possible, so they are
mutually exclusive to each other.

In order to find out the real impact, I simply changed the setting, and
again, I beg for your understanding.

Do not worry: The mailing lists are for the community, so it's the
community deciding how they should work. What I'd like to ask all of you
is to try out for a few days if that change is good for each list or
not. Should we find out it is more harmful than it helps, I will
immediately switch back to the old behaviour.

Sorry for this short notice, and I beg for your understanding that I'm
somehow sitting between two chairs here.


Hey All,

Not trying to be rude. All of you should be smart enough to run an email tool. After all you're all Linux users who administer at least one Linux installation.

For those of you having trouble with email filters try filtering on "libreoffice-users" in the subject line. That should get all your email to the right folder.

I filter on email address.

LibreO - Website folder gets <>
LibreO - Projects Global folder gets <>
LibreO - Marketing US folder gets <>
LibreO - Marketing Global folder gets <>
LibreO - Users Global folder gets <>

So each list goes into its own folder in Thunderbird.

I also have different folders for newsletters, friends, family, organizations I deal with, domain related, purchases via Amazon and PayPal accounts, etc., etc.. All of these folders are based on email address filtering and not subject line filtering. So, once I get an email from a "proper source", then I get to decide which folder that email address will go into. Subject lines and other filtering methods do not work as well for me. Every email that gets left in the general "inbox", that I am sharing with 12 email addresses I check with Thunderbird, could be potential SPAM or missed valid emails from known people. Some of the emails I receive that come from addresses that are automatically forwarded to my TRASH folder without me ever seeing any emails from those "known" SPAM sites/addresses. 95% of the all the daily emails I receive will go into a folder instead of the "default inbox". Most of those that come into that inbox are from people or companies I have not received from before. So, I get only a few "unknown" emails to go through myself. Works for me.

That's sort of what I do. I think I discovered the secret. In this group now, it appears when someone "Reply-All"s to a posting, The "To:" comes from the "From:" posting header entry, which is the poster's address and not practical to filter on in this case. However, the group address ( is inserted into the "Cc:" field. So, tried using "" in both the "Cc:" filter field as well as the "To:" filter field. I don't know what side-effects this will generate in the long run, but it seems to be working for me so far. I never filter on "Subject:" unless there is some constant in there to grab onto and it is the only option. Another poster above suggested filtering on the "[libreoffice-users]" in the subject field. That should work, but I don't trust it to stay constant. However, that is an option.
Girvin Herr

For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.