Thread: Re: [pgsql-www] Forums at postgresql.com.au
On 20/11/2010, at 11:52 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:26, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 20/11/2010, at 9:52 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 02:57, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 20/11/2010, at 3:58 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>>> >>>> Isn't that a secondary use case, though? It would be easy to solve this >>>> >>>> by providing a URL to the post in the forum that you can click; assuming >>>> >>>> the forum interface gives you the option to reply privately. >>>> >>>> That would pretty much make it impossible to use offline. >>>> >>>> That would be annoying, but I guess survivable. But how would that >>>> work for a user that hasn't signed up for the forum? How does it >>>> verify the sender? >>>> >>>> The forum uses the same confirmation as the mailing list where an email is >>>> sent to the address and they have to click on a link to activate their >>>> account - this very standard practice on forum software. >>> >>> Oh, I assumed that - you're missing my point. >>> >>> The point is this: >>> Assume John Doe posts something to the list. I am reading this, and >>> want to use "alvaros suggestion" for doing a direct response. So I >>> click the link that was in the email. *I* am not registrered in the >>> forums. How do I respond to his post in a safe way? >> >> You are registered in the forum already (it does this automatically), you simply reply on the mailing list as you havealways done. If you feel the sudden urge to only reply via the forum then simply use the recover password to login andreply from there. > > I can't do that, since all email is sent from the same address. How > will the forum software know which person I was trying to respond to? One very annoying thing about Apple Mail with these lists is that when I hit reply if I don't change the To address to themailing list or manually add the Cc then it doesn't even get sent to the mailing list. I wouldn't be surprised if a lotof my posts have disappeared like that. When you reply to an email you send it to the person your replying to and Cc the mailing list. When I send to to mailinglist I direct my actual To address to the mailing list, i'm not sending these replies to any particular person. The parser script doesn't care who the email comes from or is going to because it uses the in-reply-to field to match upthe threads. So this means when you hit reply your email program will say something like this: To: Elliot Chance <forums@postgresql.com.au> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org forums@postgresql.com.au is pointed to a black hole so that email disappears but the mailing list gets another copy. Whenthe mailing list gets its copy it sends a copy to the forum (because the forum is just like a subscribed user), the parserthen dissects the headers to find out where the post belongs. We already know this part works. > > >>>> I did have a look >>>> at https://github.com/mhagander/hamn/blob/master/listsync.py and I an do the >>>> submitting the part quite easily myself but how does that activate the user >>>> without an email being sent to them? >>> >>> Yeah, that's the part that needs to be added to it. But I don't see >>> any reason that shouldn't be fairly simple - you probably just need to >>> include a set nomail command as well. >> >> Using nomail still requires you to confirm your email address (I know because i've tried it.) If there were a magic valueyou could pass then it would defeat the purpose of having email confirmations and people would just write scripts tocheat it - like I want to do. > > Uh, no. Not when you're accessing the interface with the proper > password (one that has permissions to do admin actions on the list). > The code in that example does not require confirmation for the > subscriptions. It does, I think, send out the "welcome to the xyz > list" mail, but that should also be easily scriptable away. Theres no way I'm relying on the fact that every person that signs up to the forums will be informed enough to realise thatthe forum is more-or-less just a front for the mailing list. If I signed up to a forum and got and email saying "welcometo the mailing list" I would think "Um, I didn't sign up to this" and unsubscribe. Now all my posts will be rejectedby the mailing list and my posts will goto thin air without me ever knowing. > > >>>> When you say offline I assume you mean replying to one or more threads while >>>> not connected to the internet, then releasing your outbox when you get back >>>> to an internet connection? >>> >>> Yes. For example, when on a plane or somewhere where the cell coverage is bad. >> >> Like I explained this is no problem. After all you still get the same problems with a pure mailing list. For example ifsomeone posted the question "How do I insert records?" and your on a plane typing "Use INSERT ....." but before your planelands someone else has already responded to the person. Your email will still be sent so that the person gets two answers.Just like the persons email program will rank the answers by timestamp so will posts to the forum. > > You are still not understanding the problem. Since I *don't have the > users email address*, I can't send it the normal way. I have nowhere > to send it. Explained above, your not sending it to the person your sending it back to the mailing list. I know this works because I'vebeen testing it with my own address like a dummy mailing list. > > >>>> That's fine because all the posts are back dated >>>> to sync with the email send time, so your replies will still appear after a >>>> given post even if there has been more replies since then. >>> >>> I think you're again missing that this was a comment to Alvaros >>> suggestion, which was the "have a link at the bottom of the email >>> going back to the forums". >>> >>> And you're also missing the fact that I'm talking about doing a >>> private response to the person who posted it, not a general >>> to-the-list response. >> >> Forums and mailing lists have the same functionality they just do the same things different ways. If you want to use themailing list you have to use it like a mailing list, if you want to use the forum then you have to use it like a forum. >> >> If John Doe signs up to the forum he is expecting the forum to work like a forum. When his answer is posted to the forumthread he will be notified. If in rare cases someone needs to send him a private message or email they can still doso through those features provided inside the forum software. > > So again, you're either not understanding the problem, or deliberately > avoiding it. > > John Doe posts something to the forum. > This gets mirrored to the mailinglist. From address is forum@postgresql.com.au > I read this > I want to respond to John Doe. If you want to respond you use the Reply button. > > There is no way for me to reach John Doe at this point. I can reach > the mailinglist. But I don't want to reach the mailinglist, I want to > reach John Done. If you want to personally reach John Doe you can use either the PM or email system in the forum - and you know how to reachhim by his name. And perhaps a URL at the bottom of the email. If you just want to reply to him then i've explain thatabove. > > How do I access the forums private message feature, since I'm not > registered in the forum software? Again, you are registered, you have a password but you'l have to recover it the first time to be able to login to the forumto send PMs/emails etc. > > -- > Magnus Hagander > Me: http://www.hagander.net/ > Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 14:22, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 20/11/2010, at 11:52 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:26, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 20/11/2010, at 9:52 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 02:57, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 20/11/2010, at 3:58 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Isn't that a secondary use case, though? It would be easy to solve this >>>>> >>>>> by providing a URL to the post in the forum that you can click; assuming >>>>> >>>>> the forum interface gives you the option to reply privately. >>>>> >>>>> That would pretty much make it impossible to use offline. >>>>> >>>>> That would be annoying, but I guess survivable. But how would that >>>>> work for a user that hasn't signed up for the forum? How does it >>>>> verify the sender? >>>>> >>>>> The forum uses the same confirmation as the mailing list where an email is >>>>> sent to the address and they have to click on a link to activate their >>>>> account - this very standard practice on forum software. >>>> >>>> Oh, I assumed that - you're missing my point. >>>> >>>> The point is this: >>>> Assume John Doe posts something to the list. I am reading this, and >>>> want to use "alvaros suggestion" for doing a direct response. So I >>>> click the link that was in the email. *I* am not registrered in the >>>> forums. How do I respond to his post in a safe way? >>> >>> You are registered in the forum already (it does this automatically), you simply reply on the mailing list as you havealways done. If you feel the sudden urge to only reply via the forum then simply use the recover password to login andreply from there. >> >> I can't do that, since all email is sent from the same address. How >> will the forum software know which person I was trying to respond to? > > One very annoying thing about Apple Mail with these lists is that when I hit reply if I don't change the To address tothe mailing list or manually add the Cc then it doesn't even get sent to the mailing list. I wouldn't be surprised if alot of my posts have disappeared like that. Use "Reply To All" when you want to send to the list. It's what everybody else has been doing for ages :-) If you want to read up on the bike-shedding that goes behind that preference, it is something that comes up regularly - just search the archives. > forums@postgresql.com.au is pointed to a black hole so that email disappears but the mailing list gets another copy. Whenthe mailing list gets its copy it sends a copy to the forum (because the forum is just like a subscribed user), the parserthen dissects the headers to find out where the post belongs. We already know this part works. So how does one respond to the user? >>> Using nomail still requires you to confirm your email address (I know because i've tried it.) If there were a magic valueyou could pass then it would defeat the purpose of having email confirmations and people would just write scripts tocheat it - like I want to do. >> >> Uh, no. Not when you're accessing the interface with the proper >> password (one that has permissions to do admin actions on the list). >> The code in that example does not require confirmation for the >> subscriptions. It does, I think, send out the "welcome to the xyz >> list" mail, but that should also be easily scriptable away. > > Theres no way I'm relying on the fact that every person that signs up to the forums will be informed enough to realisethat the forum is more-or-less just a front for the mailing list. If I signed up to a forum and got and email saying"welcome to the mailing list" I would think "Um, I didn't sign up to this" and unsubscribe. Now all my posts will berejected by the mailing list and my posts will goto thin air without me ever knowing. Like I said, "that should also be easily scriptable away". Yes, it will take more than zero seconds of work to look into how to do it. >> You are still not understanding the problem. Since I *don't have the >> users email address*, I can't send it the normal way. I have nowhere >> to send it. > > Explained above, your not sending it to the person your sending it back to the mailing list. I know this works becauseI've been testing it with my own address like a dummy mailing list. At the risk of sounding like a broken record.. I don't *WANT* to send it to the list, in this scenario. I want to send it to the *person*. >>> Forums and mailing lists have the same functionality they just do the same things different ways. If you want to usethe mailing list you have to use it like a mailing list, if you want to use the forum then you have to use it like a forum. >>> >>> If John Doe signs up to the forum he is expecting the forum to work like a forum. When his answer is posted to the forumthread he will be notified. If in rare cases someone needs to send him a private message or email they can still doso through those features provided inside the forum software. >> >> So again, you're either not understanding the problem, or deliberately >> avoiding it. >> >> John Doe posts something to the forum. >> This gets mirrored to the mailinglist. From address is forum@postgresql.com.au >> I read this >> I want to respond to John Doe. > > If you want to respond you use the Reply button. But that email goes to forum@postgresql.com.au. Which you said above is a black hole. How do I get it to John? >> There is no way for me to reach John Doe at this point. I can reach >> the mailinglist. But I don't want to reach the mailinglist, I want to >> reach John Done. > > If you want to personally reach John Doe you can use either the PM or email system in the forum - and you know how to reachhim by his name. And perhaps a URL at the bottom of the email. If you just want to reply to him then i've explain thatabove. But I'm not *on* the forum, I'm using the mailinglist. The URL at the bottom is an acceptable solution, if you can make it work transparently. I just don't understand how you can do that - since I haven't signed up, I don't have a password.And you can't encode it in the URL, because it goes into public archives... So how would that URL *work*? >> How do I access the forums private message feature, since I'm not >> registered in the forum software? > > Again, you are registered, you have a password but you'l have to recover it the first time to be able to login to the forumto send PMs/emails etc. So basically, I can't respond to posts made from the forum then, because having to go through such a cycle is certainly broken enough that I would never use it. Based on that, I'm back to saying that the email has to be generated from a valid email address, that can be used for return traffic. Whether it's the users original address or a forum-specific one is a different question, but a blackhole catch-all one just won't do. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Using the reply to all, thanks. On 21/11/2010, at 12:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 14:22, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 20/11/2010, at 11:52 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:26, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 20/11/2010, at 9:52 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 02:57, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 20/11/2010, at 3:58 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Isn't that a secondary use case, though? It would be easy to solve this >>>>>> >>>>>> by providing a URL to the post in the forum that you can click; assuming >>>>>> >>>>>> the forum interface gives you the option to reply privately. >>>>>> >>>>>> That would pretty much make it impossible to use offline. >>>>>> >>>>>> That would be annoying, but I guess survivable. But how would that >>>>>> work for a user that hasn't signed up for the forum? How does it >>>>>> verify the sender? >>>>>> >>>>>> The forum uses the same confirmation as the mailing list where an email is >>>>>> sent to the address and they have to click on a link to activate their >>>>>> account - this very standard practice on forum software. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, I assumed that - you're missing my point. >>>>> >>>>> The point is this: >>>>> Assume John Doe posts something to the list. I am reading this, and >>>>> want to use "alvaros suggestion" for doing a direct response. So I >>>>> click the link that was in the email. *I* am not registrered in the >>>>> forums. How do I respond to his post in a safe way? >>>> >>>> You are registered in the forum already (it does this automatically), you simply reply on the mailing list as you havealways done. If you feel the sudden urge to only reply via the forum then simply use the recover password to login andreply from there. >>> >>> I can't do that, since all email is sent from the same address. How >>> will the forum software know which person I was trying to respond to? >> >> One very annoying thing about Apple Mail with these lists is that when I hit reply if I don't change the To address tothe mailing list or manually add the Cc then it doesn't even get sent to the mailing list. I wouldn't be surprised if alot of my posts have disappeared like that. > > Use "Reply To All" when you want to send to the list. It's what > everybody else has been doing for ages :-) If you want to read up on > the bike-shedding that goes behind that preference, it is something > that comes up regularly - just search the archives. > > >> forums@postgresql.com.au is pointed to a black hole so that email disappears but the mailing list gets another copy. Whenthe mailing list gets its copy it sends a copy to the forum (because the forum is just like a subscribed user), the parserthen dissects the headers to find out where the post belongs. We already know this part works. > > So how does one respond to the user? I can't explain it any clearer, your email response goes to the mailing list and that mailing list sends a copy to the originalperson thats how a mailing list works. It also sends a copy to the forum which is parses you and that person andanyone else can see the reply on the forum. > > >>>> Using nomail still requires you to confirm your email address (I know because i've tried it.) If there were a magicvalue you could pass then it would defeat the purpose of having email confirmations and people would just write scriptsto cheat it - like I want to do. >>> >>> Uh, no. Not when you're accessing the interface with the proper >>> password (one that has permissions to do admin actions on the list). >>> The code in that example does not require confirmation for the >>> subscriptions. It does, I think, send out the "welcome to the xyz >>> list" mail, but that should also be easily scriptable away. >> >> Theres no way I'm relying on the fact that every person that signs up to the forums will be informed enough to realisethat the forum is more-or-less just a front for the mailing list. If I signed up to a forum and got and email saying"welcome to the mailing list" I would think "Um, I didn't sign up to this" and unsubscribe. Now all my posts will berejected by the mailing list and my posts will goto thin air without me ever knowing. > > Like I said, "that should also be easily scriptable away". Yes, it > will take more than zero seconds of work to look into how to do it. As theres no way or checking the subscription status of an address I would have to subscribe them every post. And i'm surethey would get really annoyed when every they unsubscribe from the mailing list and make a post on the forum they keepgetting "welcome to the mailing list" emails. > > >>> You are still not understanding the problem. Since I *don't have the >>> users email address*, I can't send it the normal way. I have nowhere >>> to send it. >> >> Explained above, your not sending it to the person your sending it back to the mailing list. I know this works becauseI've been testing it with my own address like a dummy mailing list. > > At the risk of sounding like a broken record.. I don't *WANT* to send > it to the list, in this scenario. I want to send it to the *person*. Theres only two possible scenarios; 1. The person is signed up to the mailing list, in which case they will get your reply when its passed through the mailinglist like they should. 2. The person signed up to the forum and not the mailing list, in which case they will get an email from the forum saying"JohnDoe has replied to your post..." Either way they will get your response. > > >>>> Forums and mailing lists have the same functionality they just do the same things different ways. If you want to usethe mailing list you have to use it like a mailing list, if you want to use the forum then you have to use it like a forum. >>>> >>>> If John Doe signs up to the forum he is expecting the forum to work like a forum. When his answer is posted to the forumthread he will be notified. If in rare cases someone needs to send him a private message or email they can still doso through those features provided inside the forum software. >>> >>> So again, you're either not understanding the problem, or deliberately >>> avoiding it. >>> >>> John Doe posts something to the forum. >>> This gets mirrored to the mailinglist. From address is forum@postgresql.com.au >>> I read this >>> I want to respond to John Doe. >> >> If you want to respond you use the Reply button. > > But that email goes to forum@postgresql.com.au. Which you said above > is a black hole. How do I get it to John? > > >>> There is no way for me to reach John Doe at this point. I can reach >>> the mailinglist. But I don't want to reach the mailinglist, I want to >>> reach John Done. >> >> If you want to personally reach John Doe you can use either the PM or email system in the forum - and you know how toreach him by his name. And perhaps a URL at the bottom of the email. If you just want to reply to him then i've explainthat above. > > But I'm not *on* the forum, I'm using the mailinglist. > > The URL at the bottom is an acceptable solution, if you can make it > work transparently. I just don't understand how you can do that - > since I haven't signed up, I don't have a password.And you can't > encode it in the URL, because it goes into public archives... So how > would that URL *work*? > This is your forum account http://forums.postgresql.com.au/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=101 Anyone that posts to the mailing list becomes a member of the forum so that their emails can be used as posts otherwise therewould be one giant MailingList user that has 99%+ of the forum posts which is a terrible idea. > >>> How do I access the forums private message feature, since I'm not >>> registered in the forum software? >> >> Again, you are registered, you have a password but you'l have to recover it the first time to be able to login to theforum to send PMs/emails etc. > > So basically, I can't respond to posts made from the forum then, > because having to go through such a cycle is certainly broken enough > that I would never use it. > > Based on that, I'm back to saying that the email has to be generated > from a valid email address, that can be used for return traffic. > Whether it's the users original address or a forum-specific one is a > different question, but a blackhole catch-all one just won't do. > Nothings changed if you wish to continue using the mailing lists. > -- > Magnus Hagander > Me: http://www.hagander.net/ > Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 14:46, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote: >>> forums@postgresql.com.au is pointed to a black hole so that email disappears but the mailing list gets another copy.When the mailing list gets its copy it sends a copy to the forum (because the forum is just like a subscribed user),the parser then dissects the headers to find out where the post belongs. We already know this part works. >> >> So how does one respond to the user? > > I can't explain it any clearer, your email response goes to the mailing list and that mailing list sends a copy to theoriginal person thats how a mailing list works. It also sends a copy to the forum which is parses you and that personand anyone else can see the reply on the forum. Clearly you're not understanding my point. I don't *want* it to go to the list. I want to write a private email to the user who made a post from the forum, without having to set up and use a forum account. Just a simple response, just the way I can do now. But I'll leave it to somebody else to attempt to explain that, since I clearly am unable to get it across. >>>> Uh, no. Not when you're accessing the interface with the proper >>>> password (one that has permissions to do admin actions on the list). >>>> The code in that example does not require confirmation for the >>>> subscriptions. It does, I think, send out the "welcome to the xyz >>>> list" mail, but that should also be easily scriptable away. >>> >>> Theres no way I'm relying on the fact that every person that signs up to the forums will be informed enough to realisethat the forum is more-or-less just a front for the mailing list. If I signed up to a forum and got and email saying"welcome to the mailing list" I would think "Um, I didn't sign up to this" and unsubscribe. Now all my posts will berejected by the mailing list and my posts will goto thin air without me ever knowing. >> >> Like I said, "that should also be easily scriptable away". Yes, it >> will take more than zero seconds of work to look into how to do it. > > As theres no way or checking the subscription status of an address I would have to subscribe them every post. And i'm surethey would get really annoyed when every they unsubscribe from the mailing list and make a post on the forum they keepgetting "welcome to the mailing list" emails. Sure there is. If you looked at the script I sent, you would notice it does just that - checks if a user is already subscribed, and subscribes him/her if not on there only. And you're still stuck on the "keep getting the welcome mail", even though I've told you several times that I'm certain you can make it work without having it send that out. Again, I give up. It can be done, but clearly I can't explain it in a way that you can understand. Hopefully somebody else can understand what I'm saying and explain it further. >>>> You are still not understanding the problem. Since I *don't have the >>>> users email address*, I can't send it the normal way. I have nowhere >>>> to send it. >>> >>> Explained above, your not sending it to the person your sending it back to the mailing list. I know this works becauseI've been testing it with my own address like a dummy mailing list. >> >> At the risk of sounding like a broken record.. I don't *WANT* to send >> it to the list, in this scenario. I want to send it to the *person*. > > Theres only two possible scenarios; > 1. The person is signed up to the mailing list, in which case they will get your reply when its passed through the mailinglist like they should. Seriously? Please read what I wrote. Or at least try. I am NOT SENDING IT TO THE LIST. I am sending it DIRECTLY TO THE PERSON. Or rather, I'm trying, but it goes to forum@, which is a blackhole that throws it away. That shall, again, be my last attempt. But solving the problem is a *requirement*, so hopefully someone can explain it better. >>> If you want to personally reach John Doe you can use either the PM or email system in the forum - and you know how toreach him by his name. And perhaps a URL at the bottom of the email. If you just want to reply to him then i've explainthat above. >> >> But I'm not *on* the forum, I'm using the mailinglist. >> >> The URL at the bottom is an acceptable solution, if you can make it >> work transparently. I just don't understand how you can do that - >> since I haven't signed up, I don't have a password.And you can't >> encode it in the URL, because it goes into public archives... So how >> would that URL *work*? >> > > This is your forum account http://forums.postgresql.com.au/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=101 > > Anyone that posts to the mailing list becomes a member of the forum so that their emails can be used as posts otherwisethere would be one giant MailingList user that has 99%+ of the forum posts which is a terrible idea. I can't use it, because I don't have my password. And I need to be able to contact people via email, since *my* interface is email. (And yes, single account is a terrible idea, I totally agree with that) >>>> How do I access the forums private message feature, since I'm not >>>> registered in the forum software? >>> >>> Again, you are registered, you have a password but you'l have to recover it the first time to be able to login to theforum to send PMs/emails etc. >> >> So basically, I can't respond to posts made from the forum then, >> because having to go through such a cycle is certainly broken enough >> that I would never use it. >> >> Based on that, I'm back to saying that the email has to be generated >> from a valid email address, that can be used for return traffic. >> Whether it's the users original address or a forum-specific one is a >> different question, but a blackhole catch-all one just won't do. >> > > Nothings changed if you wish to continue using the mailing lists. Except I can no longer respond to people in private, which is a feature I (and many others) use extensively. Anyway, I've tried and repeatedly failed to explain what the requirements that I put up there are. I know others have understood them (from offlist conversations), so I leave it to somebody else to take over if this is going to ever get to completion, since we seem to just be talking past each other. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 14:46, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> forums@postgresql.com.au is pointed to a black hole so that email disappears but the mailing list gets another copy.When the mailing list gets its copy it sends a copy to the forum (because the forum is just like a subscribed user),the parser then dissects the headers to find out where the post belongs. We already know this part works. > >> > >> So how does one respond to the user? > > > > I can't explain it any clearer, your email response goes to the mailing list and that mailing list sends a copy to theoriginal person thats how a mailing list works. It also sends a copy to the forum which is parses you and that personand anyone else can see the reply on the forum. > > Clearly you're not understanding my point. I don't *want* it to go to > the list. I want to write a private email to the user who made a post > from the forum, without having to set up and use a forum account. Just > a simple response, just the way I can do now. > > But I'll leave it to somebody else to attempt to explain that, since I > clearly am unable to get it across. I would argue that if the person wants to use a forum, aren't they saying they don't want to be contacted via email. I think we just throw it only to the forum (that is the user) and leave it that. Forum users don't get the _rich_ email experience. ;-) -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 05:46, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21/11/2010, at 12:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 14:22, Elliot Chance <elliotchance@gmail.com> wrote: >> Use "Reply To All" when you want to send to the list. It's what >> everybody else has been doing for ages :-) If you want to read up on >> the bike-shedding that goes behind that preference, it is something >> that comes up regularly - just search the archives. >>> forums@postgresql.com.au is pointed to a black hole so that email disappears but the mailing list gets another copy.When the mailing list gets its copy it sends a copy to the forum (because the forum is just like a subscribed user),the parser then dissects the headers to find out where the post belongs. We already know this part works. >> So how does one respond to the user? > I can't explain it any clearer, your email response goes to the mailing list and that mailing list sends a copy to theoriginal person thats how a mailing list works. It also sends a copy to the forum which is parses you and that personand anyone else can see the reply on the forum. Elliot, Magnus wants forum->list email to come from a per-user address so that when he replies directly to that address (without sending it to the list), the response is mapped to a PM. Magnus, I see a couple issues with that: 1 - Conventionally, private messages are not used quite that often in forums. They are truly separate from public discussion, not a natural part of it by virtue of being the same ultimate message destination. 2 - Since Reply to All is a convention on this list, the forum needs to deal with that somehow. Both a private and public response containing the same content is unacceptable for forums. The public response is always preferred and can't be integrated later, such as in the common "solution" of having the list software not send a copy when it detects a person's address already in the address list.
On Nov 20, 2010, at 8:22 , Elliot Chance wrote: > One very annoying thing about Apple Mail with these lists is that when I hit reply if I don't change the To address tothe mailing list or manually add the Cc then it doesn't even get sent to the mailing list. Use Reply to All: Cmd-Shift-R. Michael Glaesemann grzm seespotcode net
On 21 Nov 2010, at 24:17, Trevor Talbot wrote: >> I can't explain it any clearer, your email response goes to the mailing list and that mailing list sends a copy to theoriginal person thats how a mailing list works. It also sends a copy to the forum which is parses you and that personand anyone else can see the reply on the forum. > > Elliot, Magnus wants forum->list email to come from a per-user address > so that when he replies directly to that address (without sending it > to the list), the response is mapped to a PM. Actually, I think that's only your approach to a possible solution to achieve what he wants? I'm not one of the people who've been communicating off-list about this with him, so I may be wrong, but to my understandingwhat Magnus wants (the requirement, not a solution to it) is this: - Person A is on the forums and sends a message that ends up on the ML (and on the forums, naturally). - Someone on the ML, Person B, sends him a _private_ reply, not intended to end up in either the ML or the forums. - The message goes to the forum software and is passed on to Person A, and does _not_ end up on the forums or the ML. I do see a difficulty here; if the forum software is only subscribed with one e-mail address, how is it going to distinguishbetween a reply-all and a private reply? Maybe it would help to subscribe it using two or three addresses, so that you can see if both (or at least two out of three)addresses got the reply, or only one? I'm pretty sure the end result that Magnus (and me, and probably many more on this ML) intends is a forum layer that is _transparent_to the list. We're not going to change our habits because there's suddenly a forum connected to our ML, you need to be able to and willingto deal with that or you're not up to this project. Personally I'm not particularly pleased with your choice of PhpBB, it's got a few dark areas in its history - they seem moreconcerned with skins than with security (Plus, it's written in PHP, which is a mess), so forgive me for being a bit skeptic. Solving the issue is a different matter. Giving every forum poster their own e-mail address is a possible solution. I thinkthat subscribing the forum with a few e-mail addresses is another, and that will also give you redundancy in case oneof those addresses encounters a problem. Alban Hertroys -- If you can't see the forest for the trees, cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest. !DSPAM:737,4ce9194510421646015157!
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 05:04, Alban Hertroys <dalroi@solfertje.student.utwente.nl> wrote: > On 21 Nov 2010, at 24:17, Trevor Talbot wrote: >> Elliot, Magnus wants forum->list email to come from a per-user address >> so that when he replies directly to that address (without sending it >> to the list), the response is mapped to a PM. > Actually, I think that's only your approach to a possible solution to achieve what he wants? I was simply trying to "translate" the issues between the two environments, as it were. A per-user email address is what Magnus requested: >>> Based on that, I'm back to saying that the email has to be generated >>> from a valid email address, that can be used for return traffic. >>> Whether it's the users original address or a forum-specific one is a >>> different question, but a blackhole catch-all one just won't do. > I do see a difficulty here; if the forum software is only subscribed with one e-mail address, how is it going to distinguishbetween a reply-all and a private reply? > Maybe it would help to subscribe it using two or three addresses, so that you can see if both (or at least two out of three)addresses got the reply, or only one? Once the forum software determines an incoming email is meant to be a private message, how would it determine which user it is meant for?
On 11/21/2010 06:04 AM, Alban Hertroys wrote: > On 21 Nov 2010, at 24:17, Trevor Talbot wrote: > >>> I can't explain it any clearer, your email response goes to the mailing list and that mailing list sends a copy to theoriginal person thats how a mailing list works. It also sends a copy to the forum which is parses you and that personand anyone else can see the reply on the forum. >> >> Elliot, Magnus wants forum->list email to come from a per-user address >> so that when he replies directly to that address (without sending it >> to the list), the response is mapped to a PM. > > Actually, I think that's only your approach to a possible solution to achieve what he wants? > > I'm not one of the people who've been communicating off-list about this with him, so I may be wrong, but to my understandingwhat Magnus wants (the requirement, not a solution to it) is this: > > - Person A is on the forums and sends a message that ends up on the ML (and on the forums, naturally). > - Someone on the ML, Person B, sends him a _private_ reply, not intended to end up in either the ML or the forums. > - The message goes to the forum software and is passed on to Person A, and does _not_ end up on the forums or the ML. I rarely use forums (I access most MLs via Gmane, NNTP and a newsreader which is *the* right way to do it :-) but ISTM insisting that a ML user *must* be able to send a private message to a forum user, should not only not be a show-stopper, but could be construed as a misfeature. Forums and MLs have different features which is why some people prefer one over the other. A feature forums have is that the user community is somewhat restricted compared to a ML -- people who can send me PMs are limited to other forums users that have been validated (to a forum-dependent extent) by the forum operators. I may not want anyone who can get a ML reply address off the internet to send me a PM. If you need to send me a PM but can't be bothered to register on the PG forum to do so (just as you would have to on any other forum) then one has to question the use of the word, "need". I also note that even on the ML, you have no *right* to reply in private to me. Not on the PG list but on many others I subscribe with a temporary or unmonitored mailbox and read messages via NNTP or Google or whatever. I have a personal policy (which is a convention on many lists) that replies to public messages should be public -- if you really need to contact me privately, say so in your public reply and I will figure out a way to make it happen. It is an extremely rare need in my experience. And if it is important to you that people be able to respond privately to you, then your choice is clear -- use the ML. So demanding that the forum *must* provide a way for a mailing user to send private replies to forum users strikes me as more obstructionist than helpful. Do some of the people insisting on private email replies have some official role in the PG mailing lists? Perhaps some of this is just a plain old- fashioned turf battle?
Alban Hertroys <dalroi@solfertje.student.utwente.nl> writes:
> I'm not one of the people who've been communicating off-list about this with him, so I may be wrong, but to my
understandingwhat Magnus wants (the requirement, not a solution to it) is this:
> - Person A is on the forums and sends a message that ends up on the ML (and on the forums, naturally).
> - Someone on the ML, Person B, sends him a _private_ reply, not intended to end up in either the ML or the forums.
> - The message goes to the forum software and is passed on to Person A, and does _not_ end up on the forums or the ML.
I tend to agree with Bruce that that's not necessarily a hard
requirement: a person who's using the forums to post has more or less
disclaimed interest in getting private email, no?
But what I think we *do* need to worry about is that someone using the
mailing lists might try to send what they *think* is a private reply.
We need to be sure that a reply-to-sender-only operation does not end up
getting splattered across the forums and/or lists. Maybe bouncing it is
sufficient, in which case ML posts originating from forum users don't
have to carry a working From: address.
What I'm more concerned about myself is that forum users be
identifiable. We don't allow anonymous trolls on the mailing lists,
and I'm not pleased at the idea that a forum might provide an end-run
around that. I don't necessarily think that every posting has to
carry a working From: address to meet that requirement, though.
A forum handle of some sort would probably be sufficient.
regards, tom lane
On 21 Nov 2010, at 16:16, Trevor Talbot wrote: >> I do see a difficulty here; if the forum software is only subscribed with one e-mail address, how is it going to distinguishbetween a reply-all and a private reply? >> Maybe it would help to subscribe it using two or three addresses, so that you can see if both (or at least two out ofthree) addresses got the reply, or only one? > > Once the forum software determines an incoming email is meant to be a > private message, how would it determine which user it is meant for? I don't expect the forum software to post the message anonymously to the ML. It wouldn't be difficult to at least includethe username (as used on the forum) in the message body, and perhaps work that into the message headers, in such away that that information can be obtained from a reply to the message. Of course, the way e-mail works, there's not much guarantee that anything but the original senders' e-mail address is preserved,but such cases can be detected and be acted upon - although probably not entirely transparently For example, receiving a message that a recipient could not be reached from the recipient itself - the global forum useraccount - would seem a bit odd. It's not that different from receiving a mail from a mail-server that a recipient couldnot be found though, except that the error isn't with the address, but with related headers or the message body. You can reach the user, but it probably can not be guaranteed 100%. Alban Hertroys -- If you can't see the forest for the trees, cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest. !DSPAM:737,4ce93e6810421257911754!
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 18:12, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alban Hertroys <dalroi@solfertje.student.utwente.nl> writes: >> I'm not one of the people who've been communicating off-list about this with him, so I may be wrong, but to my understandingwhat Magnus wants (the requirement, not a solution to it) is this: > >> - Person A is on the forums and sends a message that ends up on the ML (and on the forums, naturally). >> - Someone on the ML, Person B, sends him a _private_ reply, not intended to end up in either the ML or the forums. >> - The message goes to the forum software and is passed on to Person A, and does _not_ end up on the forums or the ML. > > I tend to agree with Bruce that that's not necessarily a hard > requirement: a person who's using the forums to post has more or less > disclaimed interest in getting private email, no? > > But what I think we *do* need to worry about is that someone using the > mailing lists might try to send what they *think* is a private reply. > We need to be sure that a reply-to-sender-only operation does not end up > getting splattered across the forums and/or lists. Maybe bouncing it is > sufficient, in which case ML posts originating from forum users don't > have to carry a working From: address. Depends on your definitoin of working From. I think they need to carry a working From, from the perspective of SMTP, because otherwise they run a higher risk of getting eaten by anti-spam. That From doesn't necessarily need to go to the user - if it goes to something that does a "controlled bounce" informing the original poster, that should still work. > What I'm more concerned about myself is that forum users be > identifiable. We don't allow anonymous trolls on the mailing lists, > and I'm not pleased at the idea that a forum might provide an end-run > around that. I don't necessarily think that every posting has to > carry a working From: address to meet that requirement, though. > A forum handle of some sort would probably be sufficient. The forum is, AIUI, requiring a validated registration, so we know that it's not just a completely unidentified person. I assume the forum will be putting the registered *name* in the name part of the From field still, even if it uses a shared address. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/