On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, jason-tuhs(a)shalott.net wrote: Same. My mailbox gets a lot of input from a lot of places and I generally use the subject line to optically filter - the tag really helps. -uso.

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, David Ryskalczyk wrote: I really hate it when people use reply-all and are too lazy to edit the recipient list; I get my copy via the list, thank you, and I don't need my own personal copy as well (there's a reason for the Reply-To: header). -- Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer."

On 10/02/2017 08:19 PM, Steve Nickolas wrote: Steve: Do you receive the email from the list? Or the person that hit Reply-to-All? Mailman has a feature to not send you a copy from the list if you were a direct recipient (To or Cc.) Dave: You might consider a filter that will filter messages (to trash so it's recoverable?) to you and to the list. That way you would rely on the list copy. (But you could fetch the message out of trash if you needed to.) -- Grant. . . . unix || die

On 10/02/2017 09:33 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote: Please don't tell my (zombie?) Procmail that. I've got thousands 2300 lines of Procmail that I'm still happily using every single day. I keep bumping into Sieve. I've not had a reason to migrate to it yet. -- Grant. . . . unix || die

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 02:33:38PM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote: Courier's maildrop MDA is also still developed, and has the advantage of not being another network protocol to manage. khm

Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote: |On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, Grant Taylor wrote: |> You might consider a filter that will filter messages (to trash so it's |> recoverable?) to you and to the list. That way you would rely on \ |> the list |> copy. (But you could fetch the message out of trash if you needed to.) | |Yeah, I did use a Procmail filter for that, but Procmail is dead. I must |take a closer look at Sieve. The BSD Mail clone i maintain can perform simple filtering, too. Gunnar Ritter implemented IMAP-style search expressions. We are far from being so powerful as mutt regarding filtering, but i think automatization should work a bit better already today. Because TUHS changed its policy i have added :Ll colon modifiers to search for mailing-lists which are known (`mlist') or subscribed (`mlsubscribe') just yesterday. This is not on [master] yet but just works (true for the [next] branch as of today as such). E.g., $ printf 'File+download\nmove :Ll +lists\nxit' | s-nail -# It is a bit of a pity, since almost all MLs really worth reading use this tagging (e.g., ih, leapsecs, tz, the security lists, groff, as well as pcc and tinycc-devel, to name a few). And DKIM is no problem at all if you use G....e groups over HTTPS and give the business some opportunities to actually make some of the money necessary to drive the environment you use, HEH??? DKIM should have been designed to create DKIM envelopes, so that lists could simply create an encapsulating DKIM layer, and all would be fine. But it has not, evil to him who evil thinks, the future is bright, isn't it. I for one admire those old standards which worked for a few dozen boxes and still scale further on. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)

On 2017-10-03 12:20, Grant Taylor wrote: It's a valid viewpoint, but one of its consequences is that there is no straight way of relating multiple copies of the original message. Not only in the somewhat shady case of personal reply+list followup, but also in the quite legitimate case of posting the same message to multiple lists. A related situation is list managers that act as 2-way gateways from/to Usenet groups. Mailman can do that, and when it does it rewrites the Message-ID. The result is that all threads with mixed participants (posting both via Unsenet and via email) are broken. This is why I stopped reading the core GNU lists (help-gnu-emacs et al.) when they adopted Mailman. -- Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet, if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup. Do obvious transformation on domain to reply privately _only_ on Usenet.

Grant Taylor <gtaylor(a)tnetconsulting.net> wrote: |On 10/03/2017 08:08 AM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: |> It is a bit of a pity, since almost all MLs really worth reading |> use this tagging (e.g., ih, leapsecs, tz, the security lists, |> groff, as well as pcc and tinycc-devel, to name a few). | |I think that modifying the subject to add a tag is a perfectly valid |thing. As such, provisions should make such modifications /possible/. |Then leave the choice of doing so or not up to each list's administrator. As has happened recently. Sure. |> And DKIM |> is no problem at all if you use G....e groups over HTTPS and give |> the business some opportunities to actually make some of the money |> necessary to drive the environment you use, HEH??? | |I think that GG is an option. Just an option that I choose not to use. | |I also vehemently in the option to host things yourself. - Email is |not too complex that people can't successfully run their own server if |they want to do so. | |> DKIM should |> have been designed to create DKIM envelopes, so that lists could |> simply create an encapsulating DKIM layer, and all would be fine. | |I believe that Mailman has an option to attach the DKIM signed message |much like I (mis?)understand the wrapper that you're talking about. | |In such case, DKIM has no say. DKIM is designed to validate that a |message has not been modified in source. - The wrapper message is a |new message that happens to have an attachment. Since DKIM filters are |looking for a DKIM-Signature header in the outer most message, it does |not matter what's in the inner / attached message. | |I also staunchly believe that Mailing lists are an entity unto |themselves. Said entity is what sends the emails, not me. As such, my |opinion is that said entity should draft completely new messages using |textual content from source material that I provided. Thus there is |nothing about the original message envelope to be a problem. I was not involved in the process of creating that standard, nor have i yet really thought about the problem, and especially not did i have to manage real-world problems originating in that. |This also means that mailing lists could support things like subject |modification / SPF / DKIM / DMARC / ARC / S/MIME / PGP, etc. directly. But mailing-lists are a, possibly the most vivid part of email since a very long time, and designing a standard that does not play nice with mailing-lists is grotesque. I was not thinking about enwrapping the message, but rather of a mechanism like the stacking of Received: headers which also follows standard. Something like renaming all DKIM headers stackwise (DKIM -> DKIM-LVL1, DKIM-LVL1 -> DKIM-LVL2 etc.) and creating new DKIM headers for the updated message, also covering the DKIM stack. Something like that. Like this the existence of a stack that would need to become unrolled would be known to verifying parties, which were all newly created for this then new standard. A stack level could even be used to save-away tracked headers, like Subject:, too. But SHOULD not. ^.^ Anyway. |But ... that's just me and my opinion. Yep. Let's just stop draggin' my heart around. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)

While I haven't been on this list for very long I've seen several discussions shut down. Can we shut this one down? Seen more messages on mailing lists, DKIM, headers, procmail, and so on than anything else. Not really UNIX stuff. Jon

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: Except Warren did it backwards; he should've left the original list as it was, and migrated those with fussy clients to the new list. -- Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer."

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, Grant Taylor wrote: That's as it should be. ;) -uso.