dual replies

[Tim]

Hi,

I've noticed a recent phenomenon where some people seem to be posting,
particularly replies, to this list twice over (more than I've noticed in
the past).

They're posting to: 
*And* CCing to:

I don't see any good reason why they're doing this.

[Martin Airs]

On 01/12/2010 09:26 AM, Tim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've noticed a recent phenomenon where some people seem to be posting,
> particularly replies, to this list twice over (more than I've noticed in
> the past).
>
> They're posting to: 
> *And* CCing to:
>
> I don't see any good reason why they're doing this.

Yeah I noticed that too, like whats that all about?

[Bill Case]

On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 13:11 +0000, Martin Airs wrote:
> On 01/12/2010 09:26 AM, Tim wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've noticed a recent phenomenon where some people seem to be posting,
> > particularly replies, to this list twice over (more than I've noticed in
> > the past).
> >
> > They're posting to: 
> > *And* CCing to:
> >
> > I don't see any good reason why they're doing this.
>
> Yeah I noticed that too, like whats that all about?

It has happened to my posts.  I have sent one response to people who are
still using the [e-mail] address and received back two
copies to my post with  To:[e-mail] and 
Cc: [e-mail]

[Martin Airs]

On 01/12/2010 02:19 PM, William Case wrote:
> It has happened to my posts.  I have sent one response to people who are
> still using the [e-mail] address and received back two
> copies to my post with  To:[e-mail] and 
> Cc: [e-mail]

Oh I see, it must be the fact that redhat are forwarding mail sent to
the old address to the new address.

In future you only need send mail to the new address, everyone will
still receive it

[Bill Case]

On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 14:28 +0000, Martin Airs wrote:
> On 01/12/2010 02:19 PM, William Case wrote:
> > It has happened to my posts.  I have sent one response to people who are
> > still using the [e-mail] address and received back two
> > copies to my post with  To:[e-mail] and 
> > Cc: [e-mail]
>
> Oh I see, it must be the fact that redhat are forwarding mail sent to
> the old address to the new address.
>
> In future you only need send mail to the new address, everyone will
> still receive it

It will probably take a couple of weeks until *everyone* has their
address book changed to the new address.  Or, you can refuse to reply to
anyone using the old address.

[Tom Horsley]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:42:39 -0500
William Case wrote:
> It will probably take a couple of weeks until *everyone* has their
> address book changed to the new address.

Another question might be: Is it a people doing this, or are there
news/mail gateways out there mailing to wrong address when people
reply on the news server, or web forum, or whatever random mechanism
might live out there in electron land :-).

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 19:56 +1030, Tim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've noticed a recent phenomenon where some people seem to be posting,
> particularly replies, to this list twice over (more than I've noticed in
> the past).
>
> They're posting to: 
> *And* CCing to:
>
> I don't see any good reason why they're doing this.

No good reason, but perhaps an ungood reason: during the list transition
some people may not have had enough faith in the list admins to keep
everything flowing and are posting to both old and new addresses "just
in case".

They should stop doing that.

poc

[Ed Greshko]

Tim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've noticed a recent phenomenon where some people seem to be posting,
> particularly replies, to this list twice over (more than I've noticed in
> the past).
>
> They're posting to: 
> *And* CCing to:
>
> I don't see any good reason why they're doing this.

Gee...but nobody has mentioned the "name" of the list has been
shortened.  47% fewer characters.  :-)

[Tim]

On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 22:37 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> Gee...but nobody has mentioned the "name" of the list has been
> shortened.  47% fewer characters.  :-)

I just put it down to "we won that war," and because it upsets some
people, "don't mention the war."   ;-)

I've mentioned it twice, but I think I got away with it...

[Chris W Tucker]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Tim wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 22:37 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > Gee...but nobody has mentioned the "name" of the list has been
> > shortened.  47% fewer characters.  :-)

It was noticed, just not mentioned..
Chris

[Marcel Rieux]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Ed Greshko  wrote:
> Gee...but nobody has mentioned the "name" of the list has been
> shortened.  47% fewer characters.  :-)

One thing I did notice that *may* be more important is that Red Hat's
server was http*s* and fedoraproject's is http.

[Marcel Rieux]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Tim  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've noticed a recent phenomenon where some people seem to be posting,
> particularly replies, to this list twice over (more than I've noticed in
> the past).
>
> They're posting to: 
> *And* CCing to:  
>
> I don't see any good reason why they're doing this.

One of your messages to which I answered came back with:

This is the mail system at host smtp-mm3.fedoraproject.org.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.

For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.

The mail system

: host collab1.fedoraproject.org[64.34.195.13]
   said: 550 5.1.1 : Recipient address
   rejected: User unknown in local recipient table (in reply to RCPT TO
   command)

Final-Recipient: rfc822; [e-mail]
Original-Recipient: rfc822;[e-mail]
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: dns; collab1.fedoraproject.org
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.1.1 : Recipient
   address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table
------------------------------------

I checked my former messages and they were mailed at

[e-mail] and I had no problem. I then checked Alan's
messages and they had both addresses. So, I thought maybe it was
better to use both.

I'm going to try again with this one with only teh address you supply.
> From Google mail.

[Marcel Rieux]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Marcel Rieux  wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Tim  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've noticed a recent phenomenon where some people seem to be posting,
> > particularly replies, to this list twice over (more than I've noticed in
> > the past).
> >
> > They're posting to: 
> > *And* CCing to:  
> >
> > I don't see any good reason why they're doing this.
>
> One of your messages to which I answered came back with:
>
> This is the mail system at host smtp-mm3.fedoraproject.org.
>
> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
>
> For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>
>
> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
>
> The mail system
>
> : host collab1.fedoraproject.org[64.34.195.13]
>   said: 550 5.1.1 : Recipient address
>   rejected: User unknown in local recipient table (in reply to RCPT TO
>   command)
>
> Final-Recipient: rfc822; [e-mail]
> Original-Recipient: rfc822;[e-mail]
> Action: failed
> Status: 5.1.1
> Remote-MTA: dns; collab1.fedoraproject.org
> Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.1.1 : Recipient
>   address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table
>
> I checked my former messages and they were mailed at
>
> [e-mail] and I had no problem. I then checked Alan's
> messages and they had both addresses. So, I thought maybe it was
> better to use both.
>
> I'm going to try again with this one with only teh address you supply.
> From Google mail.

No problem this time.

To everybody: don't forget my TV problem if you have any clue. I'd
really like to get this working asap.