From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bob Proulx Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Reply to list [was: Different key maps in different dired buffers] Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:12:46 -0600 Message-ID: <20160603195221435910074@bob.proulx.com> References: <57473688.4020503@gmail.com> <20160527070959.GB27615@tuxteam.de> <83mvnc0vze.fsf@gnu.org> <83pos7z6gv.fsf@gnu.org> <86zir1n347.fsf@student.uu.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1465006408 5359 80.91.229.3 (4 Jun 2016 02:13:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 02:13:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Whitfield Diffie To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 04 04:13:21 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1b915U-0001kp-05 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Jun 2016 04:13:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59064 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b915S-0005aG-Q4 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 22:13:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60338) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b9153-0005a2-0T for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 22:12:54 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b914z-0000G5-Mm for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 22:12:52 -0400 Original-Received: from havoc.proulx.com ([96.88.95.61]:51328) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b914z-0000Fm-DN for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 22:12:49 -0400 Original-Received: from joseki.proulx.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by havoc.proulx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF6F7F5; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:12:47 -0600 (MDT) Original-Received: from hysteria.proulx.com (hysteria.proulx.com [192.168.230.119]) by joseki.proulx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3975621260; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:12:47 -0600 (MDT) Original-Received: by hysteria.proulx.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0F3F02DC4D; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:12:46 -0600 (MDT) Mail-Followup-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, Whitfield Diffie Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86zir1n347.fsf@student.uu.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 96.88.95.61 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:110291 Archived-At: Emanuel Berg wrote: > Bob Proulx writes: > > Because the bug reporting lists are open and need to include the > > original sender this carries over to other lists too. Like this > > help-gnu-emacs list. Should it require people to be subscribed? > > That is more of a gray area since it isn't a bug reporting list. > > But people writing for help are almost the same as bug > > reporters. So by default help lists get the same treatment as bug > > lists. > > There should not be any such requirements - just the web form "input > your data here, verify that you are human, wait for a mail, input > the code and come back" all that makes my stomach turn. What web form? This is a mailing list. There isn't any web form. One sends email using your MUA mail user agent. That could be any of emacs, gnus, mutt, mailx, and so on and so forth. Could be anything. Which could include a web form is one if talking about Gmail or Gmane. But those are clearly web mail interfaces. > Unless I'm desperate for help (like with the GMT - Generic Mapping > Tools - they only have a forum) I turn around when I'm asked to do > that, rather than to do it. Me too. At least for bug reporting systems such as Google Code which required me to sign up for a Google account in order to post a bug report. And so I walked away from the code rather than do so. > > But what about discussion lists? At some point maintainers of > > individual projects may state a policy for their own project. And > > so there isn't a 100% uniform policy across all of the mailing > > lists. Some lists.{non,}gnu.org lists are one way and some > > another way. > > People shouldn't be so petty about their projects! Projects are > great fun and sometimes useful but they shouldn't be a secluded > brotherhood "we know what it is about" than shuns the darkness of > the night... Mine was a statement of fact. That is simply the way things currently are. It is rather a federalist system like the US government. That which is not required globally by GNU is left to the discretion of the individual project maintainers. Because this isn't a global GNU Project policy it is allowed to be overridden by individual project maintainers. Which is why it isn't 100% uniform. > > I would hate to annoy them with a second copy. > > It is not that annoying. It is annoying. Is this a good time to note that I can tell you are using the newsgroup interface. Which comes through the gnu.emacs.help newsgroup. Is gatewayed by email to the mailing list. And therefore I assume is incapable of CC'ing the original poster who is not subscribed? This is a good example of one of the imperfections of the loosely combined systems. The original poster would need a reply-all but coming through the newsgroup it is (IIRC) impossible to do this. Which is one of the reasons I wish the mailing lists were NOT gatewayed to the newsgroups. The two are different things. Trying to tie them together cannot be 100% perfect. But it has been this way for many years. > With Gnus and mail splitting, you can get away with the extra mail > like this: I am not a gnus user. > (setq nnmail-split-methods > '( > ("mail.ml-ooa" "\\(To\\|Cc\\):.*\\(emacs-w3m@namazu.org\\|help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org\\|gnuplot-info@lists.sourceforge.net\\)") > ("mail.misc" "")) ) The canonical mailing list header to identify mailing lists is the List-ID header. Not the To header. Mailman uses X-BeenThere which is okay for Mailman but doesn't exist with other mailing list management software and therefore isn't standard like List-Id. > Some people may say, the best way to do mailing lists is with Gnus > and Gmane, which turns them into newsgroups in all essence. And > those people might have good cause to say that... Many people do prefer Newsgroups or Gmane. Gmane is not really a newsgroup. Although it has created a newsgroup-like interface. Gmane is still sending email. It is more like a centralized webmail system. > >>> I don't understand why people think "recipient might get two > >>> copies" is worse than "recipient might get no copies". > >>> Especially when the former issue is trivially avoided by Mailman > >>> or MUA duplication suppression. > >>> > >> I fully agree. > > > > I completely disagree. > > > > Mailman duplication suppression is mostly non-functional for this > > issue. > > What about my solution - does that work? (OK, not everyone uses > Gnus.) I have no idea as I am not a Gnus user. So that won't work for me. I have spent a lot of time devising various procmail related processes. All of them have pros and cons. I have tried many things over the years. In the end there isn't any perfect solution. > Well, obviously we should try to make it as pleasant as possible for > our users. On the other hand, to get two copies of help isn't a > problem! If people hit the ceiling in frustration because of that > perhaps they should take a leave from computers and do Buddhism for > half a year, and then come back... On that I agree. Which is why you haven't seen complaints from me about it. But it does annoy me enough to discuss it. :-) > > And so we have an imperfect system that we simply have to learn to > > live with regardless of the problems. Even with the problems it is > > much better than a web forum. > > Indeed. Tho there can be a gateway in between that as well - Indeed there are many interfaces already in existence. > the future of computing is interface-agnostic! Of that I am not so sure. As time went by the typical interface all looked like a web page. But now I read blogs saying the web interface is dead and that it all looks like an app with a touch screen. We shall see. > Why not have the exact same material accessible as a mailing list, > as a Gmane newsgroup, as a Usenet newsgroup, as a web forum, and as We do already have all of those things. Those are all different. And the seams between are not completely smooth between them. > a Facebook whatever-they-call-it! This isn't hard to do, well, not > impossible anyway. (With Facebook politics may be a problem.) Facebook has a lot of non-free problems. I would not recommend expanding our free libre discussion onto that non-free platform. It would prevent many people from participating. > Recall there is already gnu-emacs-help (the listbot), there is > gmane.emacs.help (Gmane), and there is gnu.emacs.help (Usenet). And unless I am mistaken I believe all of those already exist and are all gatewayed to the same mailing list. > Is there a "GNU web forum" software? On Usenet, there is > rec.bicycles.tech - and here is the same thing, as a web forum! > http://www.cyclebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8 Yes. There are many. Gmane is a good example. And also all of the web based newsgroup readers of which I am not familiar. Bob