RE: [OT] Mail-Followup-To, Outlook (was: mode-line tooltips for "[" and "]" in recursive-edit)

[Drew Adams]

> From: Reiner Steib Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 10:46 AM
> [ We should probably take this off-list? ]

That's not obvious, at this point, since this is about
interacting with the mailing list.

> >> Your mailer does not respect the Mail-Followup-To
header
> [...]
> > IOW, before jumping to conclusions about causes, what is
the symptom
> > that is bothering you?
>
> The Mail-Followup-To header suggest to whom replies should
be
> directed.  Then doing a wide reply to Dan's article (with
has
> "Mail-Followup-To: address@hidden"), Gnus prompts
with the
> following explanation:
...
> See also <http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html> and
> <http://cr.yp.to/immhf/response.html>.  The former URL
lists the
> following programs as using Mail-Followup-To: qmail, Mutt,
nmh,
> Shuriken, Gnus, and Kmail.

Thanks for the information, Reiner.

Those might be the cat's meow, but with the exception of
Mutt they don't even register on the mail client usage stats
I've seen - e.g.
https://messaging.its.monash.edu.au/stats/client/. Most of
the universe is nonconformist and disrespectful, it seems.
;-)

> As it is not a standard and not very widely used, I don't
complain
> about anyone _not_ respecting it.  Dan's MMV.

In my mailer (still a common one), the two possibilities I
am aware of are Reply and Reply All. The former replies only
to the sender; the latter replies to everyone. I've had
people on the list complain when I didn't use Reply All.
AFAICT, of the two, Reply All seems to lead to fewer
complaints, so far.

> > Unless someone can characterize the problem more
concretely
> > and cite an Outlook preference setting that takes care
of
> > it, I guess you'll have to take up the problem with
Devil
> > Gates. Tell him that his mail client is misbehaving.
>
> Wrong.  Probably nobody is forced to use this software
when
> participating on this mailing list.

Your "probably" is an unwarranted assumption, depending on
how severely one interprets "forced to". I'm using my work
computer with a work mailing address and a work mail client.
I could choose to buy another computer, get another mailing
address, wait until I'm home to answer mail, and so on, so
I'm not strictly "forced to" use Outlook for this list.

Anyway, it sounds as if most of the mail clients in actual
use are misbehaving, if those who behave are limited to
qmail, Mutt, nmh, Shuriken, Gnus, and Kmail. Proclaimed
etiquette and convention are of little use if they are not,
well, actually conventional.

> More disturbing about your
> Outlook 11 is the "Kammquoting"[1].  Well,
> `gnus-article-outlook-deuglify-article' in Gnus can fix
often fix
> it. [2]
>
> [1] zig-zag-shaped lines that it's hard to read.  See the
box on the
>     RHS of http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kammquoting

I don't read German, unfortunately. Googling for just
Kammquoting didn't help either. But I see what you mean from
the box you mention.

>     or the commentary section of `lisp/gnus/deuglify.el'

I looked at deuglify.el too. Kammquoting doesn't seem like a
big deal, to me, but I agree that it is not pretty and
reduces readability. Anyway, AFAICT, my posts and their
wrapped lines are less ugly than a lot of others.

I've reduced the wrap column to 60 - perhaps that will help
a little. Outlook is no doubt primitive, when it comes to
plain-text mail.

BTW, the Commentary in deuglify.el speaks of "illegal"
unwrapping, which is no doubt inappropriate terminology.

>     In articles
<address@hidden> and
>     <address@hidden> (the
article I'm
>     replying to).
>
> [2]
> ,----[ (info "(gnus)Article Washing") ]
> | `W Y f'
> |      Full deuglify of broken Outlook (Express) articles:
Treat
> |      dumbquotes, unwrap lines, repair attribution and
rearrange
> |      citation.
(`gnus-article-outlook-deuglify-article').
> `----

Thanks again for educating me.