Quick question, Felmon, do you have to do this for all mails from this
list, both Tom's and mine, or just for mails like the ones from Tom?
From a *brief* google, it seems that the List-* headers may legally
be other than email addresses, so some mail clients, I gather Alpine is
one, don't use them at all for replies, instead replying to the From
field. Other mail clients, like Thunderbird and apparently Claws Mail,
do use them, at least when they are email addresses or mailto URLs, to
reply to the list.
So, as I understand it:
Alpine is technically correct, in that it cannot *rely* on the List-*
headers for replies. Though arguably it should do this when these
headers do give a valid email address.
The list is technically correct, in that it shouldn't enforce Reply-To
header rewriting to *force* all mails to go back to the list, and
instead provides the List-* headers as per the RFC. Though arguably it
would be fine to overwrite the Reply-To header, because it changes the
default to be a reply to the list, and users can override that if they
want, rather than the current situation with non-smart mail clients,
which is the reverse.
Thunderbird et. al. are practically correct, in that the List-* headers
often do contain a valid email address, and can be used for replying to
the list, which is what people want most of the time.
The best solution, obviously, would be to extend the relevant RFC to
include a List-Reply header that is mandated to be the valid email
address of the list for replies, such that mail clients can use it to
provide smart replies. Of course, this means extending an RFC, and then
waiting for all email clients to update to include the new behaviour.
Maybe someone who knows this stuff could comment further, I'm just
starting to understand it myself. I've heard the debate on the list
before about what the list should and shouldn't do, but I never really
understood it, because some mails worked correctly and some didn't. I'm
only now getting the hang of this, and I can't remember what all has
been said before (and I can't really be bothered to go look it up and
raise it all again).
Basically, for me things work, unless someone sends mails that are
addressed to me personally and only CCd to the list, which I feel is
the wrong behaviour from a mail client, although the issue of why
some mail clients do that seems to be technical.
But technically, neither the list nor the mail client are *wrong*. In
practice it seems either one could be changed, although it is probably
more a mail client fault than a list fault, or at least so it seems to
me.
Paul
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:56:55 -0400 (EDT)
Felmon Davis <davisf@union.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Paul wrote:
Well, it does seem like all your mails do this, but not all mails
from this list exhibit this behaviour. Most mails from the list,
even replies, are addressed to the list. Yours are different in
that they're not addressed to the list, only CCd to the list. Some
other people's replies are the same, but I'd say not most.
I have to manually remove the OP's address and put the list address
in the To: field.
it is tiresome. no other list I know (or manage) works this way.
I use 'alpine' when posting to the list.
I would be happy to write the postmaster; I forget who that is.
F.
When the mail is addressed to the list, or addressed to someone
else and CCd to the list, I can just click reply, but when the mail
is addressed to me personally and only CCd to the list clicking
Reply replies to the sender only.
I can only think that it's a difference in email clients and how
they handle list messages. The messages contain list headers, so
most clients, like mine, must pick that up and automatically reply
to the list, but some, like yours, must be ignoring those and
replying to the sender instead. I think.
So if I'm understanding the process right, it's not so much a
problem with how the list is set up (other than that it doesn't
rewrite the sender header), but rather with some clients not
honouring the list headers.
Paul
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:08:01 +0100
Tom Davies <tomcecf@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi :)
Nope, it;s the standard way these mailing lists have behaved for a
long time now.
It used to be that people could just click on "Reply to" and their
message would go straight to the mailing list. Now most
email-clients require people to click on "Reply to all ..." and the
mailing list's address is only in the "CC" rather than in the "To"
field. Numerous people have grumbled about it in here but few
bother to post a complaint to the postmaster address and those
that do just seem to get agro for it.
One person here did try to show how he re-configured his own
email-client to get around the problem and a few of the other
longer-term people here might well have followed his lead but i am
not sure what effect that sort of thing has on non-LO emails.
Also i kinda believe in the "Eat your own dog food" principle so
that i stay in touch with the problems normal users have when they
first approach this mailing list. Regards from
Tom :)
On 25 August 2014 13:56, Paul <paulsteyn1@afrihost.co.za> wrote:
Well, Maurice quoted from my mail, so I'm pretty sure he did
receive it.
Btw: Tom, your mail was addressed to me directly, and CCd to the
group, causing my default reply-to to go to just you (luckily I
noticed in time). Not sure why this happens for some messages, did
you do anything differently for your message?
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 13:41:14 +0100
Tom Davies <tomcecf@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi :)
I suspect that Paul's post below has not yet arrived in Maurice's
time-line.
Email threads sometimes get a bit disjointed, especially if an
over-enthusiastic junk/spam-filter tends to carefully reject
anything with any hint of code in it! However it could easily be
that someone starts from their older messages and work forwards
to newer and newer ones instead of the more sensible approach
(imo) of working from the newest posts backwards to the oldest.
By starting with the newest ones first i often find that older
posts have already been dealt with and can thus be safely ignored
even if they stir-up side-issues (which also might have already
been largely dealt with).
On the other hand it might be good if someone could test Paul's
script. Perhaps it's possible to combine the 2 ideas so that both
the file-name AND the few lines of surrounding text could be
output? Would that help? Also it might be good to have the
output directed into a file rather than just onto the
command-line?
I really like Don Pobanz's answer and the way Paul was able to
help tweak it. It felt like a return to what this mailing list
is largely about = collaborating to build-up a better answer
faster than the individuals had time to do on their own. Good
work!! :))) Regards from
Tom :)
On 24 August 2014 19:29, Paul <paulsteyn1@afrihost.co.za> wrote:
Try changing the line:
unzip -ca "$file" content.xml | grep -ql "$1"
to:
unzip -ca "$file" content.xml | grep -qC 10 "$1"
the "-l" to grep makes it show only the names of files that
match, not the content. The "-C #" gives # lines of context
around the match. Or you could use "-B #" and "-A #" to print #
lines of leading and trailing conext, respectively.
You could also make a script to pull the contents of all the
files and concatenate them in such a way that you can use
Writer to do find inside one big document, but that would be
considerably harder. Try this first.
Paul
Disclaimer: I haven't actually tested this, just done a "man
grep", but I think the syntax is right...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 18:16:35 +0000 (UTC)
Maurice <maurice@bcs.org.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 11:44:31 -0500, Don Pobanz wrote:
I find it very useful for finding a word or phrase within
my odt documents.
Thank you, Don, but that only shows which files contain the
search string. (It's likely that all files in the list will
contain at least one occurrence of the string.)
That would be a start, but what I am looking for is a means of
seeing the string as if Writer was showing the file contents,
so that I can see the surrounding text.
(Equivalent to joining all the doc's into one big file, then
doing a Find. Perhaps I shall have to do the joining
manually...)
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to:
users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive:
http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages
sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive:
http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages
sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Context
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.