Re: [Evolution] Mailing list filters

[Pete Biggs <pete biggs org uk>]

> (If that seems odd, remember that the person who replies cannot know if
> you're subscribed to the list or not, so it's horribly rude of them to
> *drop* you from the direct recipients and potentially cut you out of the
> conversation. See http://david.woodhou.se/reply-to-list.html )

Hmm, *I* think it's "horribly rude" to ask a question on a mailing list
to which you aren't subscribed.  I *hate* it when people CC me on
mailing list replies - use "Reply to list" and not "Reply All", that's
what it's there for.  But this is not a prompt for a long debate - it's
nothing anyone can do anything about because you can't impose your
preferences on how someone else behaves.

> If you filter as described above, *both* copies of the reply will get
> filtered into the folder, rather than only the one which actually
> arrived via the list.

It depends on the mailing list settings.  There is a per user setting on
many mailing lists of "Avoid duplicate messages".  With that you don't
receive the list copy if you are listed in the To: or Cc: headers.
Which is good, because you don't get two copies; but it's bad because
the *only* copy you receive doesn't have the list headers on it, which
breaks filtering and "Reply to list".  And if the list is moderated for
non-subscribers (or whatever), then you receive, and possibly reply to,
a message before the rest of the list sees it.

That's why I dislike being directly sent replies to mailing list posts.
It breaks things for me; it makes things difficult for me.  And I can
explicitly say I don't want it to happen until I'm blue in the face, but
it won't make any difference to anything, people will still keep doing
what they think is "the only way it should be done" - or more likely
what is most convenient for them.

It's Monday morning and I'm grumpy ...

P.