Closed Bug 3745 Opened 26 years ago Closed 24 years ago

Must handle Followup-to: poster in news

Categories

(MailNews Core :: Composition, defect, P3)

defect

Tracking

(Not tracked)

VERIFIED FIXED
mozilla0.9.4

People

(Reporter: phil, Assigned: hwaara)

References

()

Details

Attachments

(10 files)

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
JF, is this more a compose bug, or more a news bug (for sspitzer)?
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
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...
> 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.
QA Contact: 4080 → 4098
Target Milestone: M8
M8
moved to M9
Target Milestone: M8 → M9
really moving to m9.
OS: Windows NT → All
Hardware: PC → All
correcting platform to All since this appears to be cross platform.
Target Milestone: M9 → M11
M11
Phil filed a mailnews "Help Wanted" bug on this feature - bug 11041. I don't think this needs to be fixed by PR1.
Blocks: gnksa
Depends on: 13574
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.
*** Bug 11041 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Fixed. News now uses new quoting
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?
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
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.
Assignee: ducarroz → sspitzer
Status: REOPENED → NEW
Triage to M15
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
QA Contact: scurtis → lchiang
changing qa contact back to lisa, since stacey is gone. accepting.
QA Contact: lchiang → huang
I think, this could be simply handled in the viewer by disabling "Reply to Newsgroup".
Summary: Should handle Followup-to: poster in news → [HELP WANTED] Should handle Followup-to: poster in news
Whiteboard: HELP WANTED
Replacing 11041 in [HELP WANTED]
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
Keywords: helpwanted
Keywords: helpwanted
Summary: [HELP WANTED] Should handle Followup-to: poster in news → Should handle Followup-to: poster in news
Whiteboard: HELP WANTED
moving to m16.
Target Milestone: M15 → M16
*** Bug 14873 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Triage to M18. Please let me know if this must be in beta2.
Target Milestone: M16 → M18
This is a GNKSA MUST, adjusting SUMMARY.
Summary: Should handle Followup-to: poster in news → Must handle Followup-to: poster in news
nominate for nsbeta3.
Keywords: nsbeta3
Adding mail4 triage nomination keyword.
Keywords: mail4
Keywords: helpwanted
Whiteboard: [nsbeta3-]
- per mail triage Adding helpwanted for mozilla.org to contribute to Mozilla.
Keywords: mozilla1.0
Sorry for the extra mail. Removing mail4 keyword.
Keywords: mail4
*** Bug 60690 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
mass change of huang's news bugs to stephend.
QA Contact: huang → stephend
clearing milestone, m17 and m18 are meaningless now. these need to be triages along with the rest.
Target Milestone: M18 → ---
Blocks: 76449
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. ***
I have a fix.
Assignee: sspitzer → hwaara
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Keywords: helpwanted, nsbeta3
Whiteboard: [nsbeta3-]
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla0.9.4
Attached patch proposed fix (deleted) — Splinter Review
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?
How about Followup-To: poster, group1, group2 ?
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).
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.
Does your patch include a warning dialog when "poster" is encountered?
No. The RFCs and guidelines doesn't say it should.
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.
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.
R=ducarroz
Fix checked in. Keeping this bug open to also fix the warning. Jglick, mpt: what's a good wording for the warning?
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."
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.)
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?"
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...
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).
"(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
maybe s/ a / the usual / (to avoid the feeling that the user made something wrong)
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.
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))"
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.)
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.
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.
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!
If the consensus is that "followup" is more appropriate that "reply" in this dialog, thats fine with me. :-)
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))"
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).
> 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).
I'll go ahead and implement robinf, jglick and mpt's conclusion.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
jg wrote: > We should [...] fix the toolbars Filed bug 95623.
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
BTW, I wrapped the .properties string locally (so no need to comment about it).
Whiteboard: Awaiting reviews
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
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
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.
Attached patch new patch (deleted) — Splinter Review
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!
Bienvenu / Seth: can I please get a sr=?
why isn't NS_MSG_GENERATE_FAILURE(12563) really 12533?
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).
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.
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
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?
Attached patch best patch (deleted) — Splinter Review
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. ;)
R=ducarroz. Thanks for fixing nsMsgCompose::GetDomWindow
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."
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 ago24 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
> 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. ***
No longer blocks: gnksa
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
Product: MailNews → Core
Product: Core → MailNews Core
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: