Re: when replying, use envelope recipient
=- Derek Martin wrote on Tue 19.Dec'06 at 21:07:56 -0500 -=
> Patrick,
> {...} One wonders why you bother to post on mailing lists at all.
> {...}
> Mailing lists have become an environment of flame wars,
> condecension, and generally insulting behavior. God knows in the
> past I've been involved in far too many of those myself, and I
> finally came to the conclusion that the Internet would be a much
> better place if people like me would shut the hell up, or at
> least change their attitude. If you're not going to help people,
> why say anything at all?
There is more than just 1 way to help.
Some like spoonfeeding, others prefer teaching to fish.
Similarly the recipients vary from looking for one to the other.
If people prefer (_for whatever reason_) not to take direction to
help themselves, so be it. For some it's enough time saved and
they're happy with it (and know where to look or how to search
next time on their own).
> I'm sure everyone who posts a message on this list can find the
> answer to their question on their own, EVENTUALLY, after perhaps
> hours of searching... But doing so can be exhausting and
> monumentally time-consuming. If someone is standing by, ready
> and willing to provide the answer at a moment's notice, why
> should anyone need to go through all that? It is a complete
> waste of time, and being told, time and time again, to RTFM only
> serves to frustrate, infuriate, and alienate people.
Well, if possible, I (and Patrick likewise) provide pointers what
to look for in rtfm not to have to read all of it.
I haven't see a pure "rtfm" from anyone (recently).
> But, like a lot of questions, it isn't one that's easy to phrase
> in such a way that a quick search on-line or in the manual will
> quickly and easily turn up the answer. That is true for a great
> many of the questions that are asked here; even ones that get
> asked a lot.
Veterans might try to construct a starter entry in the FAQ and
refine as more requests appear who fail to be served by it.
As long as there is _no_ entry, there is likewise _no chance_ to
find it without help.
> So? You make it sound like trying to solve problems quickly is Evil.
No, just a preference of the above: give fish or teach fishing.
> You're right: Sometimes it is more useful to point people to the
> right section of the manual. This is not such a case. The answer
> to the question is short, and doesn't require a lot of explanation.
A pointer likewise. Given a place to look, OP might find more
related interesting info.
=- Patrick Shanahan wrote on Tue 19.Dec'06 at 21:29:59 -0500 -=
> > Most users {...} just want to get some work done. For such
> > people, reading through endless pages of documentation to find
> > the simple answer to their questions is nothing but an
> > obstacle, and not an enjoyable one. This is precisely why
> > lists like this one exist.
>
> yes, :^), to enhance the fine documentation.
... exactly, so they can find their solutions on their own without
having to ask anyone.
=- Travis H. wrote on Wed 20.Dec'06 at 0:14:49 -0600 -=
> but I'm not an expert on everything.
Nobody demands this from you (or anyone).
> Technically I could reverse engineer, say, Windows XP, to figure
> out the best way to remove an installed program, but it's faster
> to ask someone who actually uses that accursed OS.
... or read what people would answer you (and what they've
answered to others before you asking the same), if such a thing
existed for your request.
> Does being the most efficient, simplest, and quickest way to
> reliably answer the question make it morally wrong?
That's not the question, but rather what's the "most efficient,
simplest, and quickest way". ;)
Isn't it faster to get it before you have to ask for it?
> I didn't point out that it was difficult to get meaningful
> results from a search about it (either on the web or in the
> reference section).
That's what some of us aim for to fix!
> I'd rather read the source than a dictionary of mutt config
> lines that are mostly irrelevant.
So true.
> Perhaps to prevent this situation, someone (possibly me, though
> I'm not sure I'm the best person to do it) should write a page
> about RFC-2822 email headers and how the MUA-to-MTA interaction
> works, with specific emphasis on the sort of config directives
> that affect it. Then I would have been able to identify that as
> a section that might contain some relevant settings.
Well, in MuttGuide there is /Headers with the keyword "envelope",
maybe you can put it there. MailConcept could be another place for
"in depth" added passages with crossreferences to + from the
/Headers page. Have fun, ask in #mutt (IRC) for "instant" help.
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
Even if it seems insignificant, in fact EVERY effort counts
for a shared task, at least to show your deserving attitude.