Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes: Sure, but that's almost always because they use broken MUAs. A reasonable MUA will have a list-reply function, and with a little generalization (ie, instead of failing if there is no List-Post header, it looks for List-Post, Reply-To, and From in that order, and uses the first one found), `list-reply' is pretty much suitable as your default reply action. (The day that XEmacs lists start Reply-To munging is the last day I will be willing to act as postmaster! ;-) As Sean mentions, it's also reasonable to use a wide reply. Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes: Hm, I didn't know about those. Very cool! There's an unused "interline space" struct member somewhere, which is what I was thinking about. Yes, that would have the same effect as the "strut" glyph, I think, but be less kludgy. I presume that's an effect of minimum-line-ascent? Maybe there's a way to control the height of the block cursor. I'm entering a bug report in the tracker. In the future, please feel free to do this yourself! _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta

Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes: No, they just have to work harder than people with competent MUAs, and won't get much sympathy from me as listmaster, that's all. Their MUAs are missing an important, well-designed, *ancient* feature for handling list traffic, and that's not my fault. If they don't understand a ten-year-old standard (RFC 2369, July 1998), indeed they are. Hey, I'm sorry that the people who wrote those things thought that what the world needed was OSS clones of Outlook or Eudora. Obviously that's a good way to get along in corporate America, which seems to be an important goal of the GNOME project in general, and of the Evolution and Tbird projects in particular. Not my problem; their goals are what they are, and if that works for them and/or you, fine. It doesn't work for me, though, and since Reply-To munging happens to be my decision to make, it's only fair that I let you know that this policy isn't going to change, and why not. _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta

Rodney Sparapani writes: The only way I know is "vaguely": "a lot". If you know of a way to achieve higher accuracy, I'd love to know about it! _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta

skip(a)pobox.com writes: That's a good suggestion, but as it turns out, I don't care about counting posters. If they care to be counted, they'll speak up, and they do. :-) I care about counting lurkers, who by definition rarely if ever speak up. I suspect that lurkers are more likely to be GMane readers, but I wouldn't count on that (ie, use the % of posters as a floor for the % of lurkers). _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta

Glynn Clements writes: Yeah, and I actually changed that default years ago, because the sense of the list was that those who wanted to dupe elimination generally preferred to do that locally via procmail or similar.[1] It seems that it got reenabled when Tux migrated our lists to a new host, and now pretty much everybody has caught it. :-( Still, over-aggressive spam filters (like feature-lacking MUAs) are a self-inflicted injury. Those folks with ADHD spam filters probably have bigger problems than missing an occasional xemacs-beta post. :-( Footnotes: [1] With the exception of Mail-Followup-To fans, of course. _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta