Today's meeting! ... and ...

[Michael Paoli]

Yes, there's meeting today!:
https://berkeleylug.com/meetings/
And, if it's like the last couple or so,
I believe there will also be in-person - for those that
can make it and are and feel safe to do so, etc. (see the
earlier posts).
Alas, I've got a scheduling conflict, so will miss at least
part of the meeting ... maybe even all of it. :-/
But I may catch part of the in-person - presuming that's happening today.

Anyway, hope all have a fine meeting in all cases!

[alan tong]

I'll be at the cafe about 12:30. 

alan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BerkeleyLUG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to berkeleylug...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/berkeleylug/20210613072448.75564xe1tbbyxxgk%40webmail.rawbw.com.

[goossbears]

2pm now, Alan already at Caffe Strada, Michael to be there w/in ~10min(?)

Am cutting out from virtual Jit.si meet, but here's a PC am giving away (posted here before on BALUG HW Wiki)...

Desktop PC available for Alan, is he possibly interested ??

Lenovo ThinkCentre M57p 6073 - Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33 GHz
4 GiB RAM (effectively 3.5 GiB usable; bit more than listed "total" below)
Conceivably upgradable all the way up to 8GiB PC2-6400/DDR2-800MHz RAM

160 GB SATA hd w/ current Debian GNU/Linux "buster" 10.x installed
LXDE desktop

Ralink RT5370 Wireless Adapter attached and included
HANNS-G HC194D 19" monitor w/ VGA cable
Generic USB mouse included
Keyboard unavailable, both rqrd power cables yes included

# inxi -F
System:    Host: M57p Kernel: 4.19.0-16-amd64 x86_64 bits: 64 Console: tty 0 Distro: Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster)
Machine:   Type: Desktop System: LENOVO product: 6073BG8 v: ThinkCentre M57p serial: LKPYXNN
           Mobo: LENOVO model: LENOVO serial: N/A BIOS: LENOVO v: 2RKT64BUS date: 01/08/2014
CPU:       Topology: Dual Core model: Intel Core2 Duo E6550 bits: 64 type: MCP L2 cache: 4096 KiB
           Speed: 2328 MHz min/max: 2000/2333 MHz Core speeds (MHz): 1: 2328 2: 2328
Graphics:  Device-1: Intel 82Q35 Express Integrated Graphics driver: i915 v: kernel
           Display: server: X.org 1.20.4 driver: intel unloaded: fbdev,modesetting,vesa tty: 140x52
           Message: Advanced graphics data unavailable in console for root.
Audio:     Device-1: Intel 82801I HD Audio driver: snd_hda_intel
           Device-2: Z-Star Micro Venus USB2.0 Camera type: USB driver: snd-usb-audio,uvcvideo
           Sound Server: ALSA v: k4.19.0-16-amd64
Network:   Device-1: Intel 82566DM-2 Gigabit Network driver: e1000e
           IF: enp0s25 state: up speed: 1000 Mbps duplex: full mac: 00:21:86:25:48:b2
           Device-2: Ralink RT5370 Wireless Adapter type: USB driver: rt2800usb
           IF: wlx7cdd90d5c309 state: down mac: 8e:70:be:b5:8a:53
Drives:    Local Storage: total: 149.01 GiB used: 8.28 GiB (5.6%)
           ID-1: /dev/sda vendor: Seagate model: ST3160812AS size: 149.01 GiB
Partition: ID-1: / size: 29.40 GiB used: 7.82 GiB (26.6%) fs: ext4 dev: /dev/sda1
           ID-2: /home size: 99.20 GiB used: 125.3 MiB (0.1%) fs: ext4 dev: /dev/sda6
           ID-3: /var size: 3.87 GiB used: 345.4 MiB (8.7%) fs: ext4 dev: /dev/sda5
           ID-4: swap-1 size: 5.86 GiB used: 0 KiB (0.0%) fs: swap dev: /dev/sda2
Sensors:   System Temperatures: cpu: 62.0 C mobo: N/A
           Fan Speeds (RPM): N/A
Info:      Processes: 152 Uptime: 12m Memory: 3.35 GiB used: 1.30 GiB (38.9%) Init: systemd runlevel: 5 Shell: bash
           inxi: 3.0.32

inxi -m
Memory:    RAM: total: 3.35 GiB used: 1.73 GiB (51.7%)
           Array-1: capacity: 8 GiB slots: 4 EC: None
           Device-1: DIMM 0 size: 1 GiB speed: 800 MT/s
           Device-2: DIMM 1 size: 1 GiB speed: 800 MT/s
           Device-3: DIMM 2 size: 1 GiB speed: 800 MT/s
           Device-4: DIMM 3 size: 1 GiB speed: 800 MT/s

Lenovo ThinkCentre M57p 6073 - Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33 GHz
Series Specs https://www.cnet.com/products/lenovo-thinkcentre-m57p-6073-core-2-duo-e6550-2-33-ghz-monitor-none-series/

-Aaron

[Rick Moen]

Yes, I'm pretty sure we solved all of the world's problems -- but,
tragically, forgot to take notes, so we'll just be obliged to meet
again. ;->

During the meeting, Thomas asked how to send on-list replies on
sf-...@linuxmafia.com (and impliedly, though he didn't phrase it that
way) to other old-school mailing lists where the MLM (mailing list
manager software that runs thing) doesn't "munge" (force) the Reply-To:
header. Thomas uses the GMail WebUI, which reportedly _does_ present to
the user separate reply-sender (often called just "reply") and reply-all
user controls.

Reportedly, GMail's WebUI doesn't do any intelligent handling of mailing
list replies like some mailers. It doesn't have a reply-list mode, or
automatically trim non-mailing-list recipients when the user does
reply-all.

The simple answer to Thomas's question was:

o Always use reply-sender to send direct, private mail just to the poster, and
not to the mailing list.
o Always use reply-all to send a public reply to the mailing list forum.

That is _supposed_ to do the intended thing everywhere. That is the
intended purpose.

SHORT VERSION: So, do that. No, the results aren't perfect.
Controversy over related matters was ended by IETF (Internet Engineering
Task Force) in 2001, and that's what the Internet standards say.



LONG VERSION:

On some mailing lists such as berke...@googlegroups.com, the MLM
software has been configured to add a "forcing" ("munging") header to
every message the subscriber sends, e.g., BerkeleyLUG's mailing list adds
Reply-To: berke...@googlegroups.com

The logic of making the MLM do that is as follows: (1) Subscribers
hardly ever want to send offlist mail, but almost always want to
continue the public thread. (2) Subscribers shouldn't need to learn two
separate reply commands. (3) So, let's hijack the Reply-To header and
force it (via the MLM) onto all postings, so that users can just hit 'r'
and the result will be a public reply.


There are two major problems with that approach. Problem 1: That's not
what the Reply-To: header is for. It's for the sender's use to state a
preferred reply address where he/she would prefer to be reached. For
example, imagine I'm about to go on a three-month vacation at a cabin in
the woods, in Inverness, and that while there I'll be reachable at
rick...@inverness.com . I might thus, for the week or two before
vacation day, sent out mail with:

From: Rick Moen <ri...@linuxmafia.com>
Reply-To: Rick Moen <rick...@inverness.com>

If a mailing list overrides this breadcrumb I included in my mail and
hijacks Reply-To: for some other purpose, then it is interfering in the
header's legitimate function.

Problem 2: Worse, it also interferes in what a mailer's reply-sender
command is supposed to do, by forcing "munging" the communication to
public discussion when the sender tried to send a private mail. If the
contents are seriously private, the result could be embarrassent, a
bloody nose, a divorce, a termination of employment.

The fact of the matter is, there's a good reason why there are two
different reply commands, and forcing the reply-sender action to do the
work of reply-all, _just because_ some users want to learn only one
reply command an not two, is pigheaded and does harm.

Accordingly, no mailing list I administer does "munging".


During today's meeting, I inquired if anyone present administers a
Google Group, as I was pretty confident Google Group permits either
standards-compliant operation or "munging". People seemed to doubt this.
I just now looked it up, though, and I'm _correct_. To set
standards-compliant operation (no "munging"; leave subscribers' headers
alone), if one is Manager of a Google Group:"

1. Open the Group.
2. Click Settings, choose "Group Settings".
3. In section Settings, choose "Email Options".
4. In field "Post Replies" choose "to the author of the message only"
on dropdown menu.
5. Save.

In other words, BerkeleyLUG's mailing list at Google Groups doesn't
_need_ to do "munging". Someone in charge has made it do that.
(One of the many reasons I love the mutt mailer is that it can be easily
configured to ignore "munging", so mutt users can avoid being hurt by
it.)



Thomas, who's polite, observant, and concise, said (paraphrased) "But
when I do reply-all in GMail to a mailing list like
sf-...@linuxmafia.com, doesn't that result in an undesired direct
private-mail reply to the previous poster, in addition to the on-list
public response?" Yes, it does, because GMail's WebUI apparently
doesn't do intelligent processing of replies to mailing lists
(as do, for example, mutt and Emacs GNUS).

So, what's up with that?

Let's say I posted to SF-LUG:

From: Rick Moen <ri...@linuxmafia.com>
To: sf-...@linuxmafia.com

Let's say Thomas is also a subscriber, and does reply-all. By definition,
"all" means both of the two cited addresses, and there is nothing
especially special about a mailing list address in the SMTP standards.

From: tom r lopes <tomr...@gmail.com>
To: Rick Moen <ri...@linuxmafia.com>, sf-...@linuxmafia.com


So, that's why; because all means all. It's possible to have a mailer
that improves on that, the way mutt and GNUS do, but GMail's WebUI
doesn't.


Anyhoo, back in the last century, there was an infamous, noxious, and
endless Internet flamewar about Reply-To: "munging", and I carefully
avoided participating but just FAQed the matter. Then IETF settled the
argument in 2001 with RFC-2822. The "munging" position lost. The end.


Except, sadly, here we are 20 years later, and some people still think
they want "munging". In 2006, Neale Pickett had a nice essay, recapping
the history briefly and how it is now a dead issue. Marc Merlin hosts a
mirror copy:
http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-still-harmful.html Please see.


Thomas might find interesting Pickett's brief bit about the "two
copies" problem:

Getting two copies of the same email

Some people complain that they'll get two copies of the same email.
Since they're on the list, their first copy is the one sent to them by
the list. When the responder hit "reply all", it also put their email
address in the recipient list, so they get a second copy directly.

Fortunately, there's already a technical solution to this. Since all
mail clients put a unique Message-ID header on their email, a mail
reader has only to compare the Message-ID of a message to
previously-received messages. If it's the same, then the second message
is a duplicate and can be safely ignored.

If your mail reader doesn't do this, that's too bad, but it's not an
excuse to violate Internet standards and surprise people with
inconsistent behavior, just to prevent you from having to delete a few
emails. Anyone who gets any spam at all knows how to delete email.

[Michael Paoli]

> From: "Rick Moen" <ri...@linuxmafia.com>
> Subject: Two-replies problem and Reply-To: munging (was: Today's
> meeting! ... and ...)
> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 23:25:01 -0700

> During today's meeting, I inquired if anyone present administers a
> Google Group, as I was pretty confident Google Group permits either
> standards-compliant operation or "munging". People seemed to doubt this.
> I just now looked it up, though, and I'm _correct_. To set
> standards-compliant operation (no "munging"; leave subscribers' headers
> alone), if one is Manager of a Google Group:"
>
> 1. Open the Group.
> 2. Click Settings, choose "Group Settings".
> 3. In section Settings, choose "Email Options".
> 4. In field "Post Replies" choose "to the author of the message only"
> on dropdown menu.
> 5. Save.
>
> In other words, BerkeleyLUG's mailing list at Google Groups doesn't
> _need_ to do "munging". Someone in charge has made it do that.
> (One of the many reasons I love the mutt mailer is that it can be easily
> configured to ignore "munging", so mutt users can avoid being hurt by
> it.)

Hmmm... it offers several options:
Post replies to
Send replies to group posts to:
All group members
Group managers only
Group owners only
The author of the message only
Sender chooses recipient
A custom address

Well, let's see how "The author of the message only" behaves ...
there, set.
"Sender chooses recipient" sounds also like it may be viable ...
but dear knows if Google Groups does that one reasonably ... or not.

[Michael Paoli]

> From: "Michael Paoli" <Michae...@cal.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: Re: Two-replies problem and Reply-To: munging (was: Today's
> meeting! ... and ...)
> Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 23:05:08 -0700

Well ... that looks at least semi-reasonable.
Looking over the relevant headers, I see:
Sender: berke...@googlegroups.com
From: Michael Paoli <Michae...@cal.berkeley.edu>
Reply-to: michae...@cal.berkeley.edu
To: BerkeleyLUG <berke...@googlegroups.com>
List-ID: <berkeleylug.googlegroups.com>
List-Post: <https://groups.google.com/group/berkeleylug/post>,
<mailto:berke...@googlegroups.com>

So ... that should mostly be reasonable-ish. It still shouldn't
add/munge Reply-to - I didn't set that, so it overrode/added it - it
at least ideally shouldn't add or change that.
And with the To: and List-Post: a reply-all or reply-to-list should
reasonably well cover posting to the list ... though it annoys me that
they also give https in List-Post and also give that first - many older
clients don't handle that well (trying to send email to
https://groups.google.com/group/berkeleylug/post
doesn't work very well).

Anyway, should at least be an improvement and work better now, at least
in general.

[Michael Paoli]

> From: "Michael Paoli" <Michae...@cal.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: Re: Two-replies problem and Reply-To: munging (was: Today's
> meeting! ... and ...)

> Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 23:19:21 -0700

... and trying:
Sender chooses recipient
because I found two different clients didn't offer a
reply-all or reply-to-list type of option when it was set to:

The author of the message only

even though from a quick inspection of the headers, it would seem
they ought to and would offer such option(s).

[Michael Paoli]

> From: "Michael Paoli" <Michae...@cal.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: Re: Two-replies problem and Reply-To: munging (was: Today's
> meeting! ... and ...)

> Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 23:36:20 -0700

Okay ... that looks slightly better.
Tried two different clients - one only offers reply* - but in
that most recent setting will reply to list, rather than author,
and another client offers reply - that goes to author rather than
list, and also offers to reply to list.
So ... that may be the best option among the limits that Google Groups
seems to impose.
And ... the relevant headers on that one ...

Sender: berke...@googlegroups.com
From: Michael Paoli <Michae...@cal.berkeley.edu>

To: BerkeleyLUG <berke...@googlegroups.com>

List-Post: <https://groups.google.com/group/berkeleylug/post>,
<mailto:berke...@googlegroups.com>

*and yeah, no surprise - that's Google own gmail web client ... ugh.

Oooh, nice, it didn't even add a Reply-to:
So, yeah, I think that's the one we'll go with - and is now set.
And, given those headers, should generally do the right thing,
reply would go to the From: (or Reply-to: if set)
reply-all would cover the To: (and also Cc:) - generally the list would be in
at least one of those,
and reply-to-list should generally more-or-lest go to the list,
at least for clients that can grok Google's including multiple URLs
there and the first being https.
Show should be relatively good - or at least best feasible with Google Groups.

Oh, also list owners:
michae...@cal.berkeley.edu
acoh...@gmail.com
gran...@gmail.com
So ... definitely not just one that can, e.g. adjust such settings,
export and backup the entire list content and membership, etc.