On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 18:14 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> Please get rid of your Mail-Followup-To: header:
>
> Mail-Followup-To: Krzysztof Hałasa <[email protected]>,
> lkml <[email protected]>,
> [email protected],
> Russell King <[email protected]>,
> Christian Hohnstaedt <[email protected]>,
> Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
>
> It causes all recipients following the thread to be moved into the To:
> header when someone replies to one of your messages, which is deemed to
> be anti-social. You can kill this header by adding:
>
> set followup_to=no
>
> to your .muttrc file.
Thank you for telling me, I was not aware. Had no MFT related
setting in my config, learned from the manual that $followup_to
defaults to yes, have turned it off now. Other mutt users may
want to check as well. Happy new year! :)
virtually yours
Gerhard Sittig
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr. 5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: [email protected]
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 01:18:22PM +0100, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 18:14 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >
> > Please get rid of your Mail-Followup-To: header:
> >
> > Mail-Followup-To: Krzysztof Hałasa <[email protected]>,
> > lkml <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected],
> > Russell King <[email protected]>,
> > Christian Hohnstaedt <[email protected]>,
> > Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
> > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
> >
> > It causes all recipients following the thread to be moved into the To:
> > header when someone replies to one of your messages, which is deemed to
> > be anti-social. You can kill this header by adding:
> >
> > set followup_to=no
> >
> > to your .muttrc file.
>
> Thank you for telling me, I was not aware. Had no MFT related
> setting in my config, learned from the manual that $followup_to
> defaults to yes, have turned it off now. Other mutt users may
> want to check as well. Happy new year! :)
I have
# set followup_to = yes
in my .mutt/muttrc---so I'm using the default---but I'm still
unaffected. I think this is because I don't have any lists specified
(using the lists and subscribe commands). And note that there are lists
that consider using MFT to be good, ISTR that it applies to
*@lists.debian.org, but cannot currently find a reference to support
that claim. The problem is that using MFT only works if all recipents
are using and respecting it.
If Russell is annoyed in general by MFT, he could unset
honor_followup_to.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 09:42:52AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> I have
>
> # set followup_to = yes
>
> in my .mutt/muttrc---so I'm using the default---but I'm still
> unaffected. I think this is because I don't have any lists specified
> (using the lists and subscribe commands). And note that there are lists
> that consider using MFT to be good, ISTR that it applies to
> *@lists.debian.org, but cannot currently find a reference to support
> that claim. The problem is that using MFT only works if all recipents
> are using and respecting it.
Your last statement is total rubbish. This header is seen by the
mainstream Linux community as being totally evil.
> If Russell is annoyed in general by MFT, he could unset
> honor_followup_to.
And how does that stop the problem when someone *else* replies to the
message with a Mail-Followup-To? FYI, I was hounded off LKML for having
that header set.
When people have this header set, and people reply to such a message, all
recipients get moved into the To: header. This makes it impossible on
high traffic lists for people to prioritise their reading of messages
according to whether they're in the To: header or just in the Cc: header.
Being in the To: header means that someone is directing the message *AT*
you and wanting *YOU* to do something with it. Being in the Cc: is more
"for information" and so takes a lower priority.
Hence, when someone replies to a message, and their mail client ends up
moving all recipients into the To: header, it completely destroys the
ability to prioritise the reading. So, either we adopt the same position
here as the rest of the Linux community wrt this header, or I'm just going
to read messages on the list at random, completely ignoring whether I'm
in the To: header or not.
What that means is that there will have *no way* to attract my attention
to any email message - since I will not care one bit whether I'm listed
me in the To: header or not.
And no, you are NOT going to pester me on IRC each time.
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: 5.8Mbps down 500kbps up. Estimation
in database were 13.1 to 19Mbit for a good line, about 7.5+ for a bad.
Estimate before purchase was "up to 13.2Mbit".
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 09:42:52AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> (using the lists and subscribe commands). And note that there are lists
> that consider using MFT to be good, ISTR that it applies to
> *@lists.debian.org, but cannot currently find a reference to support
> that claim. The problem is that using MFT only works if all recipents
> are using and respecting it.
No, Debian specifically wants replies to be sent to the list only but
it's not really related to Mail-Followup-To - I don't think there's a
general feeling on that within Debian but ICBW. The thing about reply
to list predates the invention of MFT.
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 10:35:22AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> And how does that stop the problem when someone *else* replies to the
> message with a Mail-Followup-To? FYI, I was hounded off LKML for having
> that header set.
>
> When people have this header set, and people reply to such a message, all
> recipients get moved into the To: header. This makes it impossible on
> high traffic lists for people to prioritise their reading of messages
> according to whether they're in the To: header or just in the Cc: header.
>
> Being in the To: header means that someone is directing the message *AT*
> you and wanting *YOU* to do something with it. Being in the Cc: is more
> "for information" and so takes a lower priority.
Totally agreed.
That MFT thing might've been a good idea at the time but in reality
it causes more problems than it solves, with our usage patterns. I've
started ignoring it and would suggest people simply drop all those
"lists/subsribe" directives in their .muttrc.
Thanks.