Closed
Bug 3745
Opened 26 years ago
Closed 24 years ago
Must handle Followup-to: poster in news
Categories
(MailNews Core :: Composition, defect, P3)
MailNews Core
Composition
Tracking
(Not tracked)
VERIFIED
FIXED
mozilla0.9.4
People
(Reporter: phil, Assigned: hwaara)
References
()
Details
Attachments
(10 files)
(deleted),
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
(deleted),
image/png
|
Details | |
(deleted),
image/png
|
Details | |
(deleted),
image/png
|
Details | |
(deleted),
text/plain
|
Details | |
(deleted),
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
(deleted),
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
(deleted),
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
(deleted),
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
(deleted),
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
This is one of the "failing" points in the Good Netkeeping Seal of Approval (see
URL above). We should support Followup-to: poster in news. For the rules for
using "Followup-to: poster" see Son of 1036:
http://www.stud.ifi.uio.no/~larsi/notes/son-of-rfc1036.txt
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•26 years ago
|
||
JF, is this more a compose bug, or more a news bug (for sspitzer)?
Updated•26 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment 2•26 years ago
|
||
It should be just a matter of having a field to let the user to enter a Followup-to address. At this point, we start to
have to much address fields in the compose UI and we should maybe start using popup menu for the label of the field.
Now, am i still very busy, I will really appreciate if sspitzer can take care of this...
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•26 years ago
|
||
> It should be just a matter of having a field to let the user to enter a
> Followup-to address
I think there's more to it than that. This bug is saying that when we reply to a
message which have Followup-To: poster, we should reply via email to the author
rather than via NNTP to the newgroup.
Reporter | ||
Updated•26 years ago
|
Target Milestone: M8
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•26 years ago
|
||
M8
Comment 5•26 years ago
|
||
moved to M9
Updated•26 years ago
|
Target Milestone: M8 → M9
Comment 6•26 years ago
|
||
really moving to m9.
correcting platform to All since this appears to be cross platform.
Updated•26 years ago
|
Target Milestone: M9 → M11
Comment 8•26 years ago
|
||
M11
Phil filed a mailnews "Help Wanted" bug on this feature - bug 11041.
I don't think this needs to be fixed by PR1.
Comment 10•25 years ago
|
||
Everything is ready in Mime and Compose for it but as the new quoting isn't use
yet for quoting a news message it won't work.
Reporter | ||
Comment 11•25 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 11041 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•25 years ago
|
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 12•25 years ago
|
||
Fixed. News now uses new quoting
Reporter | ||
Comment 13•25 years ago
|
||
JF, when we spoke about this, I was under the impression that you didn't fix
Followup-To: poster, where that means reply via email rather than to the
newsgroup. Did I misunderstand?
Updated•25 years ago
|
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Updated•25 years ago
|
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Comment 14•25 years ago
|
||
Right, I did the minimal implementation. I did only the support for the header
"Followup-To: <any newsgroup>". We need specific handling for the following
headers:
"Followup-to: poster" or
"Followup-To-content"
I reopen the bug report and reassign it to Seth.
Updated•25 years ago
|
Assignee: ducarroz → sspitzer
Status: REOPENED → NEW
Reporter | ||
Comment 15•25 years ago
|
||
Triage to M15
Updated•25 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
QA Contact: scurtis → lchiang
Comment 16•25 years ago
|
||
changing qa contact back to lisa, since stacey is gone.
accepting.
Comment 17•25 years ago
|
||
I think, this could be simply handled in the viewer by disabling "Reply to
Newsgroup".
Updated•25 years ago
|
Summary: Should handle Followup-to: poster in news → [HELP WANTED] Should handle Followup-to: poster in news
Whiteboard: HELP WANTED
Comment 18•25 years ago
|
||
Replacing 11041 in [HELP WANTED]
Reporter | ||
Comment 19•25 years ago
|
||
> I think, this could be simply handled in the viewer by disabling "Reply to
> Newsgroup".
I'm not crazy about that idea. I think enabling/disabling UI elements based on
something as hidden as a Followup-To header sounds too sneaky for users to
figure out what it means.
My preference would be to do this the same way we handle Reply-To. So one click
on the Reply button would just build a mail message to the author rather than a
news message to the group.
Comment 20•25 years ago
|
||
That's a very bad idea. Users should always be able to override such headers.
So all Mozilla should do about this is to warn the user when s/he tries to send
a followup.
Reporter | ||
Comment 21•25 years ago
|
||
> Users should always be able to override such headers
They can override it. Just delete the poster's email address and re-enter the
newsgroup name.
I'm happy to take a cue from other newsreaders who handle Followup-to: poster,
but the idea of giving a warning dialog box whenever you reply to a message
which has followup-to: poster seems very unattractive to me.
Comment 22•25 years ago
|
||
> the idea of giving a warning dialog box whenever you reply to a message
> which has followup-to: poster seems very unattractive to me.
Phil, "poster" will be extremely rare, out of 21,000 articles that I have
locally, only 27 used it, and of that only 7 were not FAQs or otherwise
repeating post which are seldom followed up.
This rarity is why the alert is needed -- and why it won't be annoying to
the user.
Reporter | ||
Comment 23•25 years ago
|
||
Ok, using infrequency of occurrence to support a warning dialog seems reasonable
to me. That argues even more strongly to leave the UI for Reply to Newsgroup
enabled.
Updated•25 years ago
|
Keywords: helpwanted
Reporter | ||
Updated•25 years ago
|
Keywords: helpwanted
Summary: [HELP WANTED] Should handle Followup-to: poster in news → Should handle Followup-to: poster in news
Whiteboard: HELP WANTED
Comment 25•25 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 14873 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 26•25 years ago
|
||
Triage to M18. Please let me know if this must be in beta2.
Target Milestone: M16 → M18
Comment 27•25 years ago
|
||
This is a GNKSA MUST, adjusting SUMMARY.
Summary: Should handle Followup-to: poster in news → Must handle Followup-to: poster in news
Keywords: helpwanted
Whiteboard: [nsbeta3-]
Comment 30•25 years ago
|
||
- per mail triage
Adding helpwanted for mozilla.org to contribute to Mozilla.
Updated•25 years ago
|
Keywords: correctness
Updated•24 years ago
|
Keywords: mozilla1.0
Comment 32•24 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 60690 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 34•24 years ago
|
||
clearing milestone, m17 and m18 are meaningless now. these need to be triages
along with the rest.
Target Milestone: M18 → ---
Comment 35•24 years ago
|
||
I think it would be both more intuitive and easier to implement if "Followup-to:
poster" would just mean that when a user presses "Reply", [s]he will get the
"To" field filled in the new compose window instead of the Newsgroup field.
More intuitive:
When user presses "Reply", [s]he normally expects the "default" reply action to
be taken. Mozilla always does exactly this - it chooses the most natural way to
answer a message depending on whether it's a newsgroup message or an e-mail
message, whether "reply-to" or "followup-to" headers are present, etc. This is
the same thing as using "reply-to" and "followup-to"; "followup-to: poster"
should just cause the sender's address appear in the "To:" field of the message
being composed.
Popping up a warning seems to be extremely excessive. "It would not happen to
often" is a bad exuse. First when some popular newsreader (Mozilla?) will add an
easy UI to set Follow-up to poster, this will be used more often. But more
importantly, in some particular newsgroup it may be customary to use "Follow-up:
poster" often and we should not turn replying to such newsgroup into a fight
with warnings (with having to keep doing the right thing manually).
Easy to implement:
IMHO, fixing this bug would only require a small modification of "if (!
followUpTo.IsEmpty())" branch of
QuotingOutputStreamListener::QuotingOutputStreamListener in nsMsgCompose.cpp -
http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/mailnews/compose/src/nsMsgCompose.cpp#1599
*** Bug 95145 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Assignee | ||
Comment 37•24 years ago
|
||
I have a fix.
Assignee: sspitzer → hwaara
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Keywords: helpwanted,
nsbeta3
Whiteboard: [nsbeta3-]
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla0.9.4
Assignee | ||
Comment 38•24 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 39•24 years ago
|
||
I tried my patch with three testcases set up by sspitzer in netscape.test. All
tests were done by clicking "Reply" on the message in question.
Here are the tests:
--
Test #1:
From: Seth Spitzer <sspitzer@sspitzer.org>
Newsgroups: netscape.test
Subject: follow up to test #1
Followup-To: netscape.public.test
Result:
New compose window with "Newsgroup: netscape.public.test"
Test #2:
From: Seth Spitzer <sspitzer@sspitzer.org>
Newsgroups: netscape.test
Subject: follow up to test #2
Followup-To: poster
Result:
New compose window with "To: Seth Spitzer <sspitzer@sspitzer.org>"
Test #3:
From: Seth Spitzer <sspitzer@sspitzer.org>
Reply-To: sspitzer@subdimension.com
Newsgroups: netscape.test
Subject: followup to test #3
Followup-To: poster
Result:
New compose window with "To: sspitzer@subdimension.com"
--
Comments?
Comment 40•24 years ago
|
||
How about
Followup-To: poster, group1, group2
?
Assignee | ||
Comment 41•24 years ago
|
||
Aleksey, the RFC says that is incorrect use:
Followup-To-content = Newsgroups-content / "poster"
Note the '/' which means OR. Either the magic word "poster" is put there OR
newsgroup content (e.g., netscape.test).
Comment 42•24 years ago
|
||
Sounds good. Patch looks sane to me.
Please find someone who can give official r=/sr= stamps
Also if you don't have CVS write you need to find someone to check this in once
it has good reviews.
Comment 43•24 years ago
|
||
Does your patch include a warning dialog when "poster" is encountered?
Assignee | ||
Comment 44•24 years ago
|
||
No. The RFCs and guidelines doesn't say it should.
Comment 45•24 years ago
|
||
It needs to give a warning to meet GNKSA requirements:
==
6) Direct followups to the correct newsgroups
[...]
If the original article's "Followup-To: " header is set to "poster", the
software MUST warn the user that the original poster requested an e-mail
reply, and generate an e-mail reply by default.
==
As I said in one of my earlier comments, "poster" is fairly rare, if you don't
warn the user he will almost certainly not notice that his followup is going
out as an email reply.
Comment 46•24 years ago
|
||
sr=sspitzer
please get ducarroz to review this, since he is the module owner for compose.
after you land this fix, keep the bug open. We'll use it to track the alert we
need to add for GNKSA.
Comment 47•24 years ago
|
||
R=ducarroz
Assignee | ||
Comment 48•24 years ago
|
||
Fix checked in. Keeping this bug open to also fix the warning.
Jglick, mpt: what's a good wording for the warning?
Comment 49•24 years ago
|
||
How about:
"The poster requested that followups be mailed instead of posted."
Or:
"The poster of this article requested that replies be sent to him by email
rather than posted publicly. I'll prepare an email reply for you; you can still
turn it into a follow if you really want."
Comment 50•24 years ago
|
||
The second choice there is better, but Mozilla isn't that "friendly" We never
use the word "I" or "you" in the program, and I think it is right not to. (The
computer is a machine, and I'm really not confortable talking to it like its my
best friend.) :-) Also, not all posters are "him"
Something along the lines of...
"The user who posted this article requested that replies be emailed rather than
posted publicly."
And possibly an explanation on how to post to the newsgroup instead. (Although
that may be a little longwinded.)
Comment 51•24 years ago
|
||
That "I'll do such-and-such for you" is giving me horrible flashbacks to that
damned MS Office paperclip. ;)
Still, it does something that the other suggestions don't: it makes it clear
that the composition window is for an email reply. With the other options (so
far), a user might think that Mozilla is telling him that he did something
wrong. "The poster said that I should mail a reply instead of posting to the
newsgroup? So should I close this window and click "reply to sender" instead?"
Assignee | ||
Comment 52•24 years ago
|
||
Oh, no, please no "I".
Also, it's not "this post", it's the post you are replying to (may not be the
original post), that requests it...
Comment 53•24 years ago
|
||
sfraser's mt newswatcher has GNKSA, how does he handle it?
we can look at other news readers for inspiration.
jglick / robinf can you suggest a good wording, when you have cycles? (I
consider this low UI priority).
Comment 54•24 years ago
|
||
"(i) The poster requested a reply by email, not a public followup to the
newsgroup. The recipient field will be prepared accoundingly."?
(i) = Information message box
Comment 55•24 years ago
|
||
maybe s/ a / the usual / (to avoid the feeling that the user made something wrong)
Comment 56•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 57•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 58•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 59•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 60•24 years ago
|
||
Seth Spitzer wrote:
> (I consider this low UI priority)
If you mean the exact wording, I agree, if you mean the warning itself, I
disagree. Doing it without a warning would be almost as bad as making the change
after the "Send" button has been hit.
Comment 61•24 years ago
|
||
I like mpt's proposal (id 45916), with a few editorial changes:
"The author of this message has requested that replies to this message be sent
only to the author."
"If you also want to reply to the newsgroup, add a new row in the addressing
area, choose Newsgroup from the recipients list, and enter the name of the
newsgroup."
"((OK))"
Comment 62•24 years ago
|
||
Vocabulary: You *followup* to a post, but you *reply* via email. (Personally, I
don't like this distinction, but it seems to be used by GNKSA.)
Comment 63•24 years ago
|
||
I like mpt's/robin's suggestion. As far as "reply" vs "followup" wording, the
toolbar/menu items that the user selected to cause this situation in News do say
"Reply" so we probably want the dialog to parallel that as well.
Comment 64•24 years ago
|
||
robinf said, quoting the proposed text,
"...add a new row in the addressing area, choose Newsgroup from the recipients
list..."
Pardon? I lost it somewhere abouts, "new row." I certainly don't understand
that, thus I suspect a high proportion of users will see the words fly over
their heads too.
Jen: the accepted terminology shouldn't be changed just because someone
accidently used different wording in toolbars. We should use "followup" and
"reply" contextually (news and mail respectively) and fix the toolbars rather
than follow the error through the rest of the application. Extra work, yes, but
it needs doing.
Comment 65•24 years ago
|
||
If we are adding a dialog telling the user how to reply to the newsgroup, why
not go farther and asking the user if he/she wants to reply to the newsgroup as
well despite the sender will. If the user says yes, we will add ourself the
newsgroup in the list of the recipient. No need for the user to do extra
operation than just pressing the right button!
Comment 66•24 years ago
|
||
If the consensus is that "followup" is more appropriate that "reply" in this
dialog, thats fine with me. :-)
Comment 67•24 years ago
|
||
After talking with jglick, we understand the point raised by Ben and others
about "reply" versus "followup", and we are OK with using "followup" in the
alert dialog....
"The author of this message has requested that followups to this message be sent
only to the author."
"If you also want to followup to the newsgroup, add a newsgroup row in the
addressing area, and enter the name of the newsgroup."
"((OK))"
Comment 68•24 years ago
|
||
First paragraph is fine. Second paragraph is still not right. It's too unclear
on first reading exactly what you are saying. Notice that you're also telling
the user what the author wants to happen, not what *will* happen.
My suggestion:
"The author of this message has requested that followups to this message be sent
only to the author.
"Your response will be emailed to the author of the message. If you also want it
to appear in newsgroup(s), please add them as you would normally."
It's longer, but perhaps worth it to reduce ambiguity? I also don't like
referring to 'rows' in an message composition context, as it likely means
nothing to users. "As you would normally" will clearly raise the question, "how
then?" to those users who have never used Mozilla to post to usenet before, but
then they need to learn sometime.
What do other people think? I'm not 100% convinced my suggestion is the best,
but neither are the others (imho).
Comment 69•24 years ago
|
||
> If we are adding a dialog telling the user how to reply to the newsgroup,
No, we're adding an alert telling the user that they're replying to the author.
The <description> on how to override that (by following up to the newsgroup)
will be rarely needed, and is there just in case.
> why
> not go farther and asking the user if he/she wants to reply to the newsgroup
> as well despite the sender will.
Because such an alert would have several problems.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| , The author of this message requested that responses be sent |
| /!\ to the author only. Something something something? |
| """ |
| |
| |
| ( Follow Up to Group ) ( Cancel ) (( Reply to Author )) |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Firstly, the alert ends up with three buttons, instead of a single simple `OK'
button. (As I mentioned when attaching the Outlook Express screenshot, a
`Cancel' button is pretty much compulsory in a confirmation alert.) Since the
button text is all many users read, we would have effectively tripled the
complexity of the alert.
Secondly, a confirmation alert should only be used when the user is in danger of
some sort (and not for trivial things like, for example, asking them if they
want to go online to send unsent messages). I guess we could claim that they're
in danger of wasting time by sending a reply which was intended for the group to
the author only, but it would be a bit of a stretch.
And thirdly, I can't work out a sensible question to ask. The best I can think
of is `Are you sure you want to continue?', but that (like all the other options
I considered) seems a little misleading since `continue' here means `do
something *other than* what you asked for'.
... Which is why I recommended the simple note alert instead. The reason the
second paragraph is awkward is not the fault of the alert; it's the fault of the
composition UI itself, which has a nearly-empty toolbar yet doesn't offer simple
toggle buttons for replying to the sender and/or following up to the group. This
makes it unnecessarily difficult to switch from a reply to a followup or vice
versa during composition (see also GNKSA section 9). Someone should file an RFE
for that, whereupon this alert could become considerably simpler.
Corrections:
* `follow-ups be sent' --> `responses be sent' (carefully generalizing for
both replies and followups);
* `to the headers section' --> `to the addressing area' (robinf was right
about that bit).
Assignee | ||
Comment 70•24 years ago
|
||
I'll go ahead and implement robinf, jglick and mpt's conclusion.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment 71•24 years ago
|
||
jg wrote:
> We should [...] fix the toolbars
Filed bug 95623.
Assignee | ||
Comment 72•24 years ago
|
||
I can't do the paragraph thing, because of a bug in nsIPrompt (bug 95697 filed).
Patch coming up.
Ducarroz, Seth: please review.
Whiteboard: Awaiting reviews
Assignee | ||
Comment 73•24 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 74•24 years ago
|
||
BTW, I wrapped the .properties string locally (so no need to comment about it).
Whiteboard: Awaiting reviews
Comment 75•24 years ago
|
||
do not get the prompt from the prompt service but directly from the compose
window. The alert need to be modal to the compose window. Do something like
this:
nsCOMPtr<nsIDOMWindowInternal> composeWindow
compose->GetDomWindow(getter_AddRefs(composeWindow));
if (composeWindow)
composeWindow->GetPrompter(getter_AddRefs(prompt));
BTW, the function nsMsgCompose::GetDomWindow need to addref the result, that's a
bug but nobody is using this interface yet.
Also, please define a constant for the string 12563
Assignee | ||
Comment 76•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 77•24 years ago
|
||
1)Please put the #define FOLLOWUPTO_ALERT 12563 with others in
nsMsgComposeStringBundle.h, it should be renamed and declared as something like:
#define NS_MSG_FOLLOWUPTO_ALERT NS_MSG_GENERATE_SUCCESS(12563)
2)
+ if (composeWindow)
+ {
+ nsCOMPtr<nsIPrompt> prompt;
+ composeWindow->GetPrompter(getter_AddRefs(prompt));
+ nsMsgDisplayMessageByID(prompt, FOLLOWUPTO_ALERT);
+ }
should be
+ nsCOMPtr<nsIPrompt> prompt;
+ if (composeWindow)
+ composeWindow->GetPrompter(getter_AddRefs(prompt));
+ nsMsgDisplayMessageByID(prompt, NS_MSG_FOLLOWUPTO_ALERT);
as nsMsgDisplayMessageByID nows to deal with a null prompt.
Apart that, R=ducarroz
Assignee | ||
Comment 78•24 years ago
|
||
I will keep:
+ if (composeWindow)
+ {
+ nsCOMPtr<nsIPrompt> prompt;
+ composeWindow->GetPrompter(getter_AddRefs(prompt));
+ nsMsgDisplayMessageByID(prompt, FOLLOWUPTO_ALERT);
+ }
Because I don't want to waste our time loading a prompt if we don't have a
composeWindow to start with. Nor do I want to show a null prompt.
Assignee | ||
Comment 79•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 80•24 years ago
|
||
The problem will be that you will not show an alert at all in case of you cannot
get a promt, think that should not append but we nerver know!
I personnaly do not understand your point! For me is better to show the message
at any price than not showing it!
Assignee | ||
Comment 81•24 years ago
|
||
Bienvenu / Seth: can I please get a sr=?
Comment 82•24 years ago
|
||
why isn't NS_MSG_GENERATE_FAILURE(12563)
really 12533?
Assignee | ||
Comment 83•24 years ago
|
||
Because that one is already taken I think.
Look in the properties file.
I just added the #define in the middle of the file (grouped with other, similar
errors).
Comment 84•24 years ago
|
||
hwaara, my r= was conditional of few changes which you haven't fully done
therefore ignore it, no R= yet.
Again, I don't think is good to have a patch where we could miss the alert!
Also, don't use NS_MSG_GENERATE_FAILURE but rather NS_MSG_GENERATE_SUCCESS as
this is a informative message and not an error message.
Assignee | ||
Comment 85•24 years ago
|
||
Why would it be better to 1) Load stuff if other things are broken and thus 2)
display a null prompt than not displaying this "informative" alert?
I still don't see that. I haven't ignored it, as I said in previous comments, I
refrained. :)
Do you have any good reason why we should do that?
New patch coming up with NS_MSG_GENERATE_SUCCESS
Comment 86•24 years ago
|
||
why do you need by a null prompt? if you pass null to the
nsMsgDisplayMessageByID, this function will try to get a valid prompt and if it
cannot, it will not display the alert. What's wrong with that?
Assignee | ||
Comment 87•24 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 88•24 years ago
|
||
Fine. I'll update the patch to accommodate your comment.
I misunderstood you; thought you meant it will display a _null prompt_ (no error
text), which wouldn't help much. ;)
Assignee | ||
Comment 89•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 90•24 years ago
|
||
R=ducarroz. Thanks for fixing nsMsgCompose::GetDomWindow
Comment 91•24 years ago
|
||
sr=sspitzer
jglick / robinf, please confirm that this is the appropriate alert text:
"The author of this message has requested that responses be sent only to the
author. If you also want to reply to the newsgroup, add a new row to the
addressing area, choose Newsgroup from the recipients list, and enter the name
of the newsgroup."
Assignee | ||
Comment 92•24 years ago
|
||
fix checked in.
jen, please add the alert and the behaviour of followup-to: poster to the spec.
thanks.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago → 24 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 93•24 years ago
|
||
> If you also want to reply to the newsgroup, add a new row to the
> addressing area, choose Newsgroup from the recipients list, and enter
> the name of the newsgroup.
This satisfies the GNKSA, but in my opinion it runs too close to
suggesting that doing both is the right thing to do, and that is generally
frowned upon (also see bug #37028, if someone used "nobody" the
wording would be absolutely wrong).
Using builds:
RedHat 7.1 - 2001-08-28-08
Windows 2K - 2001-08-28-03
Mac OS 9.1 - 2001-08-28-08
Posting with an additional widget of Followup-To: poster does indeed, upon reply
of that message, warn with the appropriate text (to address other comments
regarding this text, please file a new bug) and pre-fill the addressing widget
with the To: header and the poster's e-mail address.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
*** Bug 96640 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 96•22 years ago
|
||
I know this was a while ago, but still....
Comment 45 states that by GNKSA criteria a newsreader must warn the user of a
Followup-To: poster header, so those of you who are against it are out of luck
unless you want to set an option.
What's more, it's usually a violation of Usenetiquette to ask for an e-mail
reply - see http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/mail-responses.html for the
good reasons. I don't think it a good course of action to make life easier for
the naughty ones, nor consequently harder for the well-behaved people who are
expecting a reply to someone's question to appear on the 'group.
And most of us would be p***ed off to try to post a followup to a 'group, only
to find after sending it that it hadn't gone to the 'group at all, but only to
some random's private email address.
My inclination would be to have a user preference for this. Something like:
When a newsgroup poster has requested a reply by mail:
<*> Prompt me for action
< > Reply by e-mail
< > Reply to newsgroup
< > Reply both by e-mail and to newsgroup
Updated•20 years ago
|
Product: MailNews → Core
Updated•16 years ago
|
Product: Core → MailNews Core
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•