Subject: How to defeat posting prompt?

From: [email-masked] (David S. Eitelbach)
Date: 11 Nov 1994 16:03:55 -0800

In cases where someone replied to you out of a newsgroup, when 
you reply in turn, you get a prompt about whether or not to 
include the message in the reply, followed by a _second_ prompt:

"Post follow-up message to news group(s)?"

The docs say you can suppress this prompt if you want Pine to 
assume you DO want to post as well as reply. What if you DON'T?

How the heck can you turn it off entirely *without Pine assuming
you want to post too?*

People used to the older version just bang on "y" when they see
a prompt while replying. I've already seen one case of private
email accidentally posted to a group because of this dangerous
flexibility in Pine. I expect to see more such choice morsels.

But it was embarrassing to those concerned. It would be an even
more flexible program if this feature could be disabled with a
do NOT post default.

Thanks for any and all help.
David S. Eitelbach
[email-masked]

---

From: Richard Kooijman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 14:53:04 +0100 (MET)

> assume you DO want to post as well as reply. What if you DON'T?

How are you going to support a reply WITH post then?

> flexibility in Pine. I expect to see more such choice morsels.

Dangerous flexibility? How about people-who-don't-bother-to-read are 
dangerous? You mean they also always reply with included message AND to 
all recipients? Probably the same people who publicly post those very 
informing 'Thank you for your reply' on mailing lists.

> more flexible program if this feature could be disabled with a

There are two ways to learn things: inform yourself beforehand, and by 
trial-and-error.

I guess those concerned know better now.

This sounds like a harsh reply (well, it is) but I just think that Pine 
should not be changed for every user that has some problem he/she created 
on his/her own. A UI still requires some thought of its user, we haven't  
any UI's connected directly to our brains yet.

Richard.

---

From: Nancy McGough <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Nov 1994 10:09:09 GMT

>How are you going to support a reply WITH post then?

I think David's request is a good one.  It would be nice if there were 
three variables, maybe called:

  enable-news-post-in-mail-folder
  news-post-without-validation-in-mail-folder
  news-post-without-validation-in-newsgroup

For what I think David wants he would have enable-news-post-in-mail-folder
*not* X'd.  I'd recommend having all three of them *not* X'd as the default.
To answer Richard's question about replying simultaneously through mail
and news, you would go to the newsgroup and reply to the message there
(that way you know that the message was actually posted so it is proper
netiquette to respond publicly).

Just an idea,
Nancy

--
 /\_/\
( o.o )   Nancy McGough       http://www.jazzie.com/ii/
 > ^ <    Infinite Ink        ftp://ftp.halcyon.com/pub/ii

---

From: [email-masked] (R. Stewart Ellis)
Date: 13 Nov 94 14:53:00 GMT

>Thanks for any and all help.

I have stated before that I cannot imagine a situation in which I wanted to
answer yes.  I cannot find a reliable way to tell whether it was the
intention of the sender for the mail to be private or public.  I HAVE to
assume that if I received it in mail then it is private.  If the discussion
is to be carried on in public, then I would have encountered the message in
a newsgroup.  When I post a reply and cc it to the original poster
(something that is very easy to do with nn), I always alert the reader of
the mail message 

Posted and mailed.

I think the current behavior of pine is dangerous and useless and do not
want to take responsibility for the consequences and have therefore
refrained from installing it at my site, where I do almost all the free
software installation and maintenance.  The rest of the site is running
3.89.  The main reason I upgraded was for the new default alt editor
support. 

I want to be able to disable this behavior sitewide either at compile time
or with the site config file.

-- 
  R.Stewart(Stew) Ellis, Assoc.Prof., (Off)313-762-9765   ___________________
  Humanities & Social Science,  GMI Eng.& Mgmt. Inst.    /   _____  ______ 
  Flint, MI 48504      [email-masked]               /        / /  /  / /
  Gopher,chimera,nn,tin,jove,modems, free code is best!/________/ /  /  / /

---

From: [email-masked] (R. Stewart Ellis)
Date: 13 Nov 94 16:49:59 GMT

>How are you going to support a reply WITH post then?

I have said this a number of times:  I can hardly imagine a case where this
is called for, appropriate OR needed.  Despite the insistence of many people
on this group to the contrary, many people prefer to think of mail as a
private activity, while posting is a public activity.  For those of us who
want it, pine should be configurable to be more mode oriented on this
issue.  This is almost as bad as Bcc's that aren't.

 >informing 'Thank you for your reply' on mailing lists.

Frequently used tools should be configurable so that a minimum of care is
needed to insure reasonable default behavior, selectable by the sysadmin
and/or user.  One of the advantages of pine < 3.90 was that it had generally
less dangerous behavior than elm, partly from lessened flexibility in some
areas.

 >There are two ways to learn things: inform yourself beforehand, and by 

Cars should not be built with the control pedals interchanged, particularly
when they are touted to novices for their ease of use.  "We decided to put
the accelerator under the left foot because it takes less strength than the
clutch, which we put under the right foot."

 >any UI's connected directly to our brains yet.

All some of us are asking for is to make this insane behavior configurable.

And to fix Bcc.

---

From: [email-masked] (R. Stewart Ellis)
Date: 13 Nov 94 16:59:40 GMT

>netiquette to respond publicly).

Perfect suggestion!  Every last word of it!  Let people choose insane
behavior, but make the default as conservative as possible.

 >Just an idea,

Not!  A GREAT idea.

---

From: Richard Kooijman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 20:32:35 +0100 (MET)

> 3.89.  The main reason I upgraded was for the new default alt editor

Man.....

The only thing you have to do is answer 'no' to one of the questions. 
Make sure as installer that there is a system-wide config file which 
enables the question, and post a message when the next reading courses 
start. 

> or with the site config file.

Enabling the question is possible.

As your signature says, free software is the best, but you forgot to 
mention that you don't want to make any efforts using it.

Richard.

---

From: "David S. Eitelbach" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 05:27:30 -0800 (PST)

> Man.....

If you could get down off your hind legs for a minute, you might see
that the person whose private email was posted was not the person who
answered the prompt with a yes--but rather an entirely innocent person.

Since you missed it the first time, I'll try again with an example: You
are thinking of buying an Acme computer and you post to comp.comp.acme,
asking what owners of Acme think. I own an Acme and don't like it at all. 
Rather than post a reply and get flamed for not liking Acmes, I email you 
with my impressions from my newsreader. You get the email and read it in
Pine. You have some followup questions. In emailing me, you don't read
the second prompt and the message is posted to the group as well as mailed. 
Not my fault, is it?

> any UI's connected directly to our brains yet.

I wish you had shown us all by example, in reading my first message, 
how "some thought" can prevent us from going off on the wrong tack.

I don't think Pine should be regarded as something brought down from the
Mount on stone tablets--at least not in its present form.

It's just silly to blame poor software design on "lazy" users.

David S. Eitelbach
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (David S. Eitelbach)
Date: 14 Nov 1994 05:24:36 -0800

David S. Eitelbach
[email-masked]

---

From: David L Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 17:03:11 -0800

> the second prompt and the message is posted to the group as well as mailed. 

Now we are getting to the root of the problem.  What you are saying is 
that the email message you recieved had a header

	Newsgroups: comp.comp.acme

in it.  Pine's interpretation of that header is that the message was posted
to the newsgroup.  This interpretation conforms to all RFC specifications of
the Newsgroups: header than I am aware of.  In any case, the default for the
prompt you are so strenuously objecting to is NO, so a user would have to
press 'Y' to post the reply to the group.  Anyone in the habit of blindly
hitting 'Y' at every prompt is bound to get some unexpected results. 

For more discussion of the Newsgroups: header, see the flamewar that has been
raging in comp.mail.headers for the last month or so.  Please do not restart
it here, thanks. 

|\ |  |\/|  David L. Miller    [email-masked]  (206) 685-6240
|/ |_ |  |  Software Engineer, Pine Development Team   (206) 685-4045 (FAX)
University of Washington, Networks & Distributed Computing, JE-20
4545 15th Ave NE, Seattle WA 98105, USA

---

From: [email-masked] (David S. Eitelbach)
Date: 17 Nov 1994 10:43:39 -0800

David L Miller wrote:
> Now we are getting to the root of the problem.  

No we're not. The problem is that the way pine is now configured,
the PRIVATE email of an innocent person can be inadvertently posted
publicly by someone else. That's the problem--not whether or not 
Pine passed RFC muster.

> Pine's interpretation of that header is that the message was 
> posted to the newsgroup.  This interpretation conforms to all RFC 
> specifications of the Newsgroups: header than I am aware of.

So, I eat in a restaurant. I get food poisoning. I complain to
the manager and he tells me the food was all inspected. Great!

> In any case, the default for the prompt you are so strenuously 
> objecting to is NO, so a user would have to press 'Y' to post 
> the reply to the group.  

The user just pressed a "Y" in the immediately preceeding step.
You make it sound like he has to go out of his way to press "Y".
This is misleading.

Why not make the posting default changeable? Ms. Nancy McGough
may have pointed the way on how to do this early in the thread.
If there is some reason why it *can't* be done, fine. But to deny
that there is a problem is wrongheaded.

> Anyone in the habit of blindly hitting 'Y' at every prompt is 
> bound to get some unexpected results. 

You fellows seem to feel some sense of poetic justice is being
served here. That is simply not the case and suggests that you
do not yet understand what is happening: that the private email
that gets posted is *not* that of the person hitting the wrong
key. This is the key point and one that you--and especially Mr.
Kooijman--seem to have missed.

Anyone can replicate the problem by using a test group, BTW. 
No need to take my word for it.

I will try to explain the scenario more clearly:

You are thinking of buying an Acme computer and you post to 
comp.comp.acme, asking what owners of Acme think. I own an Acme and
don't like it at all. Rather than post a reply and get flamed for not
liking Acmes, I email you with my impressions from my newsreader. You
get the email and read it in Pine. You have some followup questions.
You hit "r" for reply. Then you hit "y" to include MY PRIVATE EMAIL 
message in your reply. So far, so good. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But now the second prompt, about also posting, comes--and you goof.
With your finger still on the "Y" key, you hit "Y" just like on the
last, so familiar, prompt. This will cause your reply *and my 
incorporated private email* to be publicly posted! You write down your
comments and questions and send it. Since you didn't handle the second 
prompt properly, MY PRIVATE EMAIL, AS PART OF YOUR ALSO POSTED REPLY,
IS NOW POSTED TO A PUBLIC NEWSGROUP THROUGH NO FAULT OF MY OWN.

It's dangerous. It stinks. And it's already happening.

Ironically, Pine is touted as the choice for novice users. 

> For more discussion of the Newsgroups: header, see the flamewar
> that has been raging in comp.mail.headers for the last month or
> so.  Please do not restart it here, thanks. 

This would have been more credibly directed toward Mr. Kooijman
earlier in the thread, Mr. Miller.

David S. Eitelbach
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (R. Stewart Ellis)
Date: 18 Nov 94 02:12:27 GMT

>publicly by someone else. That's the problem--not whether or not 
[...]

 >Ironically, Pine is touted as the choice for novice users. 

At least it does not offer the novice the choice of editing her spool file
with vi, as elm does, which results in a number of corrupted mail spool
files each week at our site.

 >> so.  Please do not restart it here, thanks. 

There would be no need to carry on about this if the team would admit that
there is more than one cognitive map of how news and mail work.  They also
want to insist that there is no modality between news and mail usage.

 >[email-masked]

The failure to make this configurable befouls an otherwise excellent product
(except the the Bcc problem).

Standing firm, side by side by side.

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 23:30:41 -0800

On 17 Nov 1994, David S. Eitelbach wrote:
> MY PRIVATE EMAIL, AS PART OF YOUR ALSO POSTED REPLY,

Let me get this straight.

You use a news reader that sends mail, and in that mail it implies that 
the message was posted to a newsgroup.

The recipient of your email message sees that it appears to have been 
posted to a newsgroup as well, and he decides to post his reply to that 
newsgroup too.

Your contend that it is the recipient's fault (or the fault of the
recipient's software) that he made that assumption, and not your fault (or
your mail sending software) for implying that in the first place. 

We disagree.

It would be better to fix the mail composer which makes such false
implications.

---

From: Eric C Hagberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 07:15:50 -0500 (EST)

> (except the the Bcc problem).

Why don't you just read news with tin if you've got such a problem with 
the way pine handles this, and put lines in your system-wide 
pine.conf.fixed file disabling news-reading or posting from within pine?

:-)

-ech

+-------------------------------------------------------+
Eric Hagberg                          Phone: 212-746-4622
User Services Manager                 Fax:   212-746-8322
Office of Academic Computing      Cornell Medical College

---

From: [email-masked] (David S. Eitelbach)
Date: 18 Nov 1994 05:15:18 -0800

> You use a news reader that sends mail, and in that mail 
> it implies that the message was posted to a newsgroup.

I'm sorry, but it does not. In the scenario, I am replying to a 
public posting via private email only. The message I send is not
posted to the newsgroup and there is no implication that it was.

> The recipient of your email message sees that it appears to have
> been posted to a newsgroup as well... 

No, this is not so. But Pine will go on to act as though it were.

>...and he decides to post his reply to that newsgroup too.

Whether he decides to or not, unless he exercises meticulous care,
he will, publicly posting as well my private email to him (by virtue
of it's being naturally included in his "reply"). This was never a
problem in version 3.89. It's a new feature.

David S. Eitelbach
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (R. Stewart Ellis)
Date: 18 Nov 94 13:31:53 GMT

>It would be better to fix the mail composer which makes such false

I use nn as my news reader.  IF a MUA allows redirected input, then nn can
be configured to use that MUA.  I cannot do this with pine because pine does
not accept redirected input.  I will mail this to myself when I post it to
see what the default behavior of nn is without doing that.  The problem is
that there are a lot of broken newsreaders out there.  pine should assume
worst possible case scenario.

---

From: [email-masked] (R. Stewart Ellis)
Date: 18 Nov 94 13:37:25 GMT

>pine.conf.fixed file disabling news-reading or posting from within pine?

For some strange reason, I think my users will prefer using pine for news.
I will not use pine for news because I have to explicitly delete each
message I do not want to see again.  That would add several hours to the 2
or 3 I spend every day just keeping up with several groups.
Tin is too clunky for me, although lots of my users prefer it.  I use nn,
which is the best and fastest way to keep up with a large volume of news.  I
do not read threads, just selected authors who I trust.  Whatever I page
past on the subject menus disappears forever.

Besides I am not sure how to do what you are talking about.  I do not think
I have news enabled on pine, and I still get the "offer" to post private
email back to the group from which it came.
:|

---

From: [email-masked] (Dennis M. Maurer)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 22:30:19 GMT

Mark Crispin ([email-masked]) wrote:
: On 17 Nov 1994, David S. Eitelbach wrote:
: > MY PRIVATE EMAIL, AS PART OF YOUR ALSO POSTED REPLY,
: > IS NOW POSTED TO A PUBLIC NEWSGROUP THROUGH NO FAULT OF MY OWN.
: Let me get this straight.
: You use a news reader that sends mail, and in that mail it implies that 
: the message was posted to a newsgroup.
: The recipient of your email message sees that it appears to have been 
: posted to a newsgroup as well, and he decides to post his reply to that 
: newsgroup too.
: Your contend that it is the recipient's fault (or the fault of the
: recipient's software) that he made that assumption, and not your fault (or
: your mail sending software) for implying that in the first place. 
: We disagree.
: It would be better to fix the mail composer which makes such false
: implications. 

May I add my thoughts...

If I reply, by PRIVATE e-mail, from anywhere, to anyone, the person who
receives this private e-mail should NOT have any "option" available to  
reply in a public forum. If the software he uses offers this (public)  
option it is wrong, and the software should be fixed.

If the software can't tell the difference between public and private
e-mail, it is wrong and should be fixed.

Regards,
Dennis M. Maurer
--

---

From: "Steven D. Majewski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 19:21:08 -0500 (EST)

> e-mail, it is wrong and should be fixed.

Fine, except it's the program that's *sending* the mail that is 
improperly marking it to indicate that it has been publicly 
posted. 

Actually - there has been an argument about this because the 
semantics of "Newsgroups:" has not been sufficiently specified
in the RFC's. But, if Newgroups: is NOT interpreted to mean
that the message was, in fact, meant to be publicly posted to
that newsgroup, then there is *IN FACT* no way for a program to
on the recieving end to distinguish between a private message
or a public post. 

It is the software that is putting "Newsgroups:" headers into
messages that are not meant to be publicly posted, and marking
them as public postings that is, IMHO broken, and should be fixed. 

-- Steve Majewski       (804-982-0831)      <[email-masked]> --
-- UVA Department of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics --
-- Box 449 Health Science Center        Charlottesville,VA 22908 --

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 01:53:10 -0800

> e-mail, it is wrong and should be fixed.

Thank you very much for agreeing with us.  The software which sent a private
message couldn't tell that it was private, and indicated in its headers that
it was a public message by writing a Newsgroups: line.  Therefore it is wrong
and should be fixed.

Certain people, however, are erroneously blaming Pine for believing a
declaration that a message was public, and therefore offering to make a public
reply.  The only sensible interpretation that one can make from this is that
there are people who work on Pine and answer bug reports, whereas nobody gives
a damn about fixing broken mail software that write bogus Newsgroups: lines.

Personally, I would rather that worked-on software does the right thing, and
that broken old software be allowed, nay *encouraged*, to go extinct.

Sometimes, broken old designs (especially when those broken designs are *NOT*
sanctioned by *any* standard) need to give way to more flexible new designs.
I don't hear much of a call for a return to 6-character uppercase-only file
names, or for file representations which consist solely of 80-byte card image
records.

---

From: [email-masked] (Steven King [Really!])
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 15:20:32 GMT

>on the recieving end to distinguish between a private message

Sure there is.  One very simple way:

     Did the message come from the NNTP server?
     Or did it come from the mail spool?

If Pine pulled the message from the NNTP server, it's appropriate to ask
"Do you want to post a reply to the newsgroup?"  If Pine pulled the
message from the mail server, on the other hand, it has *NO BUSINESS*
posting a response to a public forum.  I don't care what the Newsgroups:
line says, if this message was in my mail spool then it's private.  End of
discussion. 

>them as public postings that is, IMHO broken, and should be fixed. 

I respectfully disagree.  Software which can't remember the physical
source of a message and instead relies on (possibly bogus) header
information is, IMHO broken, and should be fixed. 

(Don't get me wrong.  Other than this Pine is an incredible program.  This
one flaw isn't enough to keep me from using it or recommending it to
others!)

-- 
----------------------------------------<Steven King, [email-masked]>--
"What now, Brain?"
"We should flee in terror.  Yes.  That would be the wisest course."

---

From: [email-masked] (David S. Eitelbach)
Date: 19 Nov 1994 08:34:57 -0800

Mark Crispin wrote:
> declaration that a message was public, and therefore offering to make
> a publice reply.  The only sensible interpretation that one can make 
> from this is that there are people who work on Pine and answer bug 
> reports, whereas nobody gives a damn about fixing broken mail software
> that write bogus Newsgroups: lines.

Well...maybe we're starting to get somewhere now. First, there _was_
no problem--or, it served the sloppy user right. Now, we've moved on 
to blaming primitive and poorly tuned newsreaders.

If you people circling the wagons would care to recall, all I have 
been asking is to make the "Post also?" prompt able to be toggled off.
>From some who seem to represent Pine, I don't see any sensitivity 
toward users who, *through no fault of their own*, may have their
private email posted publicly by another. All I see is blame-shifting. 
Pretty sad.

The 3.89 version of Pine did not exhibit this dangerous behavior using
the _same_ newsreaders. Seems like this part of 3.9x Pine was designed 
for use in a perfect world--not in our real world where novice users
might choose Tin for the same reason they would choose Pine.

Hard to see how Pine ever got to be as fine a package as it is (a few 
features notwithstanding) if everyone who criticizes it gets the same 
treatment I have gotten here: first, an uncaged Mr. Kooijman; then, a
rush to the battlements; and now, blaming everything else.

David S. Eitelbach
[email-masked]

---

From: Terry Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 10:31:52 -0800 (PST)

On Sat, 19 Nov 1994, Mark Crispin wrote:

> reply.  

I would say this differently.  Pine does not implicitly *believe* the
Newsgroups declaration, and since it doesn't know what is intended in these
cases, it gives the user the opportunity to "believe" the Newsgroups 
header or not. 

In fact, there are *three* different prompts --not just one-- where the user
can control what happens.  Two of those prompts specifically ask about
posting, and their default is NO. Unless the user explicitly answers Yes to
all 3 of those prompts, the message will not be posted.  (We naively 
thought that three prompts would be sufficient to prevent mistakes... :)

Some have suggested that news and mail are fundamentally different and should
be kept completely separate in Pine.  Whether or not this is desirable is
debatable, but the debate is moot because in practice there is no way to make
that distinction in a general-purpose message reader.  At a technical level,
there are not "mail folders" and "news folders", there are only "message
folders", comprised of messages which may or may not contain a Newsgroups
header. Since Pine doesn't control which messages have a Newsgroups header,
it can't reliably infer what to do with them in all cases.  It can only ask
the user what their intent is. 

Others have suggested that all Pine needs to do is remember whether a message
was delivered via nntp vs. smtp... but Pine usually does not know how
messages were originally delivered, it just reads folders created by other
processes or saved-message folders created by Pine --and *many* people like
to save messages by topic, not by transport mechanism, so saved message
folders on a particular topic will often contain a mixture of messages
delivered via different transport mechanisms --with and without Newsgroups
headers.  Once again, Pine can only *ask* what is intended in a Reply when
there is ambiguity. 

Note also that there is no effective difference between posting to a 
newsgroup and sending a message to an email list, so again any attempt
to protect users by treating news as totally different from mail is 
doomed to fail.  (This newsgroup is a good example, since it is 
bi-directionally gatewayed to an email list.  "Newsgroups: comp.mail.pine" 
is identical to "CC: [email-masked]" in terms of exposure.)

Having said that, and while agreeing with Mark and others that it would be
better if those newsreaders that include the Newsgroups header in a *mail*
message stopped doing so (or used a different header), there is one thing we
can do in Pine to reduce the odds that someone will inadvertently post a msg
they didn't intend to: we can change the first of the three relevant prompts
(Post follow-up?) so that those who type "Y" reflexively (instead of the
safer "press RETURN" reflex) will not get into trouble.  Barry Cornelius in
the UK has sent us some good suggestions in this area.  One approach to a 
new prompt under consideration would also allow offering the choice of both
sending via mail *and* posting, which several folks have requested. 

This change in prompt behavior would introduce some additional modality in
the user interface, which is generally considered a Bad Thing in UI design
circles, but in this case is probably justified. 

-teg

---

From: [email-masked] (R. Stewart Ellis)
Date: 20 Nov 94 02:18:24 GMT

>line says, if this message was in my mail spool then it's private.  End of

YES!

 >information is, IMHO broken, and should be fixed. 

AMEN!

 >one flaw isn't enough to keep me from using it or recommending it to

HALLELUJAH!

---

From: Ed Greshko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 13:23:34 -0800 (GMT)

> circles, but in this case is probably justified. 

	Why do I get this sinking feeling that we are about to experience
another episode of "The squeaky wheel gets greased"?

	I've lived outside of the US for some time...yet there seems to
be several sayings that are "Universal".  Some of them are:

	"You can please some of the people all of the time.......but you
dan't please all of the people all of the time."

	"Never *assume*....because when you do...."

	"Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."

	IMHO, the three prompts of pine are quite sufficient.  The addition
of new prompts only means that some people will have to "learn" more
prompts to blindly supply responses.  There is no way to make pine "fool
proof" as long as you have the fallible human behind the keyboad.

	I've read some people suggest that the default behaviour of pine
is likely to lead to embarrassment to the novice user.  In my experience
I've found that *not* to be the case.  Although not scientific, I recently
exposed a group of our cc:Mail users to pine.  I let them play with it
for a few days...and then I set up a senario similar to that being
discussed.  Not one of the novice users made the mistake of posting
a reply.  Part of the reason this was not a scientific study is that
English is a second language for my users, so they tend to read
all of the prompts.  But, that should tell you something too.

	I, for one, would not appreciate yet another change in the
keystrokes of pine simply to appease what I feel is a minority of
users.   IMHO, the USA has become litigation crazy with all sorts 
of product liability suits simply because many people have forgotten
how to exercise care and common sense.  It truly wouldn't suprise me
if someone tried to sue the authors of pine (or some other software)
because they felt it didn't provide them with "addequate protection"
from making fools of themselves.

					Ed

Edward M. Greshko                       Technical Manager, Electronic Commerce
                                        Control Data Asia/Pacific Region
Voice: +886-2-715-2222 x287             6/F, 131 Nanking East Road, Section 3
FAX  : +886-2-712-9197                  Taipei, Taiwan R.O.C

---

From: Nancy McGough <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Nov 1994 04:33:44 GMT

>How the heck can you turn it off entirely *without Pine assuming

What I'm doing is using procmail and formail to process my
incoming mail messages.  If a message contains a Newsgroups
header I change it to Old-Newsgroups and then Pine won't ask
me whether I want to post my response.  Here's the recipe I'm
using:

:0 fhw
* ^Newsgroups:
| formail -i Newsgroups:

For more info about setting up procmail see my "Filtering 
Mail FAQ" that I posted this week.

Another thing I've done is set up my newsreader (nn) to
use this for mailing:

 | formail -i Newsgroups: | /usr/lib/sendmail -t

This way all messages that I mail from nn have an Old-Newsgroups
header rather than a Newsgroups header so that anyone who receives
it in Pine will not be asked whether they want to post their 
response to me.

I hope this is helpful,
Nancy

---

From: [email-masked] (David S. Eitelbach)
Date: 20 Nov 1994 09:26:41 -0800

> be several sayings that are "Universal".  Some of them are: [...]

Some others are:

	"It's a poor plan that admits of no modification."

	"Mediocre minds tend to dismiss anything that reaches 
         beyond their own understanding."

	"None are so blind as those that will not see"

	"Old people like to give good advice as solace for
         no longer being able to provide bad examples."

> IMHO, the three prompts of pine are quite sufficient.

I agree. The fact that there are three of them and that they still
don't get the job done suggests we're too far down the wrong road.

> There is no way to make pine "fool proof" as long as you have the
> fallible human behind the keyboad.

This is a "strawman". No one is asking that it be made "fool proof".
All that is being asked it that a toggle be put in to defeat the 
feature or that the feature's default be made more conservative.

> is likely to lead to embarrassment to the novice user.

No, that's not it. The point was that it leads to the embarrassment
of innocent people who may not even use Pine. Reread my earlier 
posts; I'm not going to annoy people by recapitulating the thing for
yet a fourth time.

David S. Eitelbach
[email-masked]

---

From: "Steven D. Majewski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 15:41:46 -0500 (EST)

>  >one flaw isn't enough to keep me from using it or recommending it to

The only problem with these suggestions is that they don't, in fact, work 
any more reliably than the current behaviour of asking the user whether 
he wants to post a reply to the newsgroup. If Pine did *everything* you 
asked, it would still be confronted with an ambiguous situation - and it
would either have to make an assumption according to your rules - which 
is *guaranteed* to be wrong some of the time, or continue to ask for 
guidance from the user after making a "best guess". 

If your experience is too limited to imagine WHY this is the case, then
just catch up with that recent discussion in comp.mail.headers/header-people.

BTW: By *your* criteria, tin and [t]rn are "broken" because they do not
label saved messages to indicate that they came from the news spool. 
( That is, unless you accept the convention that that is what the 
  existance of a "Newsgroups:" line means. )

---

From: Nancy McGough <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Nov 1994 19:29:48 GMT

[email-masked] (Mark Crispin) writes:
>On 19 Nov 1994, Nancy McGough wrote:
>> [email-masked] ("Steven D. Majewski") writes:
>> But unfortunately the most commonly used Unix newsreaders - tin, nn,
>> and the rn family - all put a Newsgroups header in private mail
>> messages.
>
>Then fix tin, nn, and the rn family!

Even if all newsreader developers agreed to "fix" this, it would
take years (and possibly forever) for old versions of the newsreaders
to be replaced by the new "fixed" versions.  Isn't it obvious that
Pine needs a solution that is compatible with all these "broken"
newsreaders?  

Nancy

---

From: "R. Stewart Ellis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 20:59:41 -0500 (EST)

[...]
> guidance from the user after making a "best guess". 

It would be entirely reasonable to only offer to post in response to
articles that come from the NNTP connection.  IFF the user wants to post in
response to something she has saved from news or mail, then let her ask to
post it.

> just catch up with that recent discussion in comp.mail.headers/header-people.

I got a couple of hundred messages into a 500 message thread.  What are you
saying?  I have lots of experience, over 10 years of UNIX, but only about 6
or so playing with news user agents and mail user agents in source.  So what
is your point?

>   existance of a "Newsgroups:" line means. ) 

It is not hard to tell a message either is or is not from the nntp server.
All other cases should require the user to request to post.

> >  >information is, IMHO broken, and should be fixed. 

Exactly what he is saying.

---

From: Ed Greshko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 13:40:00 -0800 (GMT)

>          no longer being able to provide bad examples."

	Yes, that goes a long way to proving that there is more than one
side to every story.  And, you can also prove anything you want with
statistics....

> > is likely to lead to embarrassment to the novice user.

	Maybe I've not interpreted this correctly...but on Date: 17 Nov 
1994 10:43:39 -0800 you stated:

       "It's dangerous. It stinks. And it's already happening.
        Ironically, Pine is touted as the choice for novice users."

> posts; I'm not going to annoy people by recapitulating the thing for

	Chances are you need to go back and re-read your posts:

--------Begin reruns-------

	On 14 Nov 1994 05:24:36 you stated:  (underline added)

                    -------------------

	Mark Crispin replied...and on 18 Nov 1994 05:15:18 -0800 you 

 

------End reruns-----

	Let's make a little graph from what you said on 14 Nov 1994.

	User A (pine user)			User B (non-pine user)

1.	Posts message to a newsgroup		Replies, via email from within
	using Pine.				newsreader.

2.      Reads message.				Eats cheese doodles.

3.	Replies to message and is offered to    Sips on favorite drink.
	post as well.

4.	Missed second prompt and posted reply.  Gets really embarrassed and
						down right angry.

	Unless User B's newsreader left the Newsgroups header on the reply....
how do you think pine got the impression that the discussion was on news?

	Not too long ago, I'd sent a priviate email to someone in our HQ.
In his reply the individual Cc:'d several others.  I wasn't very happy
about that.  But, if the UA that the other person was using would have
been configured to prevent addition of Cc's to replies...or if it gave out
the warning, "You've added Cc: in a reply to a message that was directed
solely towards you.  Please reconsider as you may embarrass the innocent
person that originated the message" ... I may have been saved.

	Maybe UAs should also be configured to prevent people from editing
the original message that they are forwarding?  I'm sure you know what
evil things can happen when people are quoted out of context.
	
	IMHO, people that are naive enough to think that what they say
in a "private" exchange will not be repeated or seen by others are....
well...naive.

	IMHO, people that make statements that are a potential 
embarrassement should be prepared to accept the consequences should their
remarks become public.  People that make potentially embarrassing statements
are not "innocent".  They are careless.  If they cannot accept responsibility
for what they have said....they are weannies.

	Regards,

					Ed

---

From: "David S. Eitelbach" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 02:54:48 -0800 (PST)

On Mon, 21 Nov 1994, Ed Greshko wrote:

[some sayings deleted]

> side to every story.  And, you can also prove anything you want with

Or aphorisms--especially "Universals".

> Let's make a little graph from what you said on 14 Nov 1994.

In your graph, you indicate "User A" posted from Pine. I believe
Tin was used, but don't think it matters. Both real users used
Pine and Tin: Pine for email, Tin for newsreading, I believe.

Interestingly, when "User A" tried to delete the offending message
using Tin, it couldn't be done. My test confirmed this. Usually 
you can delete your own messages, but not in this case. When Pine
makes an ass of a user, it does it up right.

> how do you think pine got the impression that the discussion was on news?

Who gives a damn? This is a red herring anyway.

(You would have me believe that Pine is some kind of mindless mailer
that has to rely on Tin to tell it stuff, when your camp says Tin 
is "broken"?)

Look, make the feature able to be toggled off and/or make the default
more conservative. And quit trying to shift blame. It's unseemly.

> in a "private" exchange will not be repeated or seen by others are....

The fact that some people fail to keep secrets means that private 
emails should be posted publicly?

> embarrassement should be prepared to accept the consequences
> should their remarks become public.  People that make potentially
> embarrassing statements are not "innocent".  They are careless.  
> If they cannot accept responsibility for what they have said....
> they are weannies.

"Weannies"? Jeez.

I knew this would become a "manhood" issue sooner or later. 

"Accepting responsibility" has nothing to do with it. The fact is,
as you know, that we all speak more frankly and openly in some
situations than others and that we may shape our remarks according
to who we are talking to. I'm not necessarily going to be as candid
with my boss as with my wife, anymore than you're going to tell the
cop who just pulled you over for speeding the first two words that
popped into your head when you saw him in the mirror.

You can't reshape the norms of human behavior to accommodate an 
errant feature of Pine.

David S. Eitelbach
[email-masked]

---

From: Ed Greshko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 20:54:33 -0800 (GMT)

> You can't reshape the norms of human behavior to accommodate an 

	And you can't create software to accommodate all the "norms"
of human behavior.  If you don't believe that...then why not take the
freely available source code make the "necessary" modifications and
try to please as many people as you can.  For my money, oops pine is
free :-), I'd rather have the Pine Team working on features such as
implementing such as RFC 1522 (subliminal message) than inventing 
a set of useless options.

	Regards,

		Ed

	BTW, I detest people who dare to assume what the first few words
pop into my head when I'm caught speeding...and that I wouldn't want to
repeat them to the police officer.

---

From: [email-masked] (Dennis M. Maurer)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 16:07:29 GMT

Ed Greshko ([email-masked]) wrote:

: 	IMHO, people that make statements that are a potential 
: embarrassement should be prepared to accept the consequences should their
: remarks become public.  People that make potentially embarrassing statements
: are not "innocent".  They are careless.  If they cannot accept responsibility
: for what they have said....they are weannies.

Speaking of statements that are a potential embarrassment...

Maybe, since you make such statements public, you have no concern for what
you say in private, the rest of the world may feel different.

Can I assume that you feel the same way about anything your say to your
banker, clergymen, spouse, etc?

Dennis M. Maurer
--

---

From: [email-masked] (David S. Eitelbach)
Date: 21 Nov 1994 13:50:23 -0800

Ed Greshko wrote:

> of human behavior.  

Not what we're asking, and you know it. We're asking that one stinking 
toggle be added or the default changed.

> If you don't believe that...then why not take the freely available
> source code make the "necessary" modifications and try to please
> as many people as you can. 

What's the big deal in asking one more toggle be added to prevent what
has already happened from happening to other innocents? Where does the 
concept of "customer" or "user" mentioned elsewhere by Mr. Majewski 
fit in to this attitude: if you don't like it, go make your own? 

> For my money, oops pine is free :-), I'd rather have the Pine Team
> working on features such as implementing such as RFC 1522 (subliminal
> message) than inventing a set of useless options.

A value judgement. "Useless" to you. Desireable or essential to others.

I appreciate that it's free, but that doesn't necessarily mean criticism
should be rejected.

David S. Eitelbach
[email-masked]

---

From: Ed Greshko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 08:58:56 -0800 (GMT)

> toggle be added or the default changed.

	I have a *major* problem with changing the default operation.
I work with users of pine in Tawian, Thailand, Mainland China, Korea,
Malaysia, and Singapore.  Everytime defaults are changed in programs
such as pine there is major confusion....and frustration...and *not*
on my part...but my "innocent" users.  I don't believe my situation
is unique.  

	I have a problem with adding more and more toggles to software
that *really* doesn't need it.  While un-scientific, my little experiment
with my cc:Mail users proved to me that pine was not as evil that some
people make it out to be.  Again, when my users in other countries
have to deal with more toggles that don't enhance the software.....
I recall one post suggesting that 3 additional toggles be added.  The
wording of the toggles and the possible combinations would give some
native English speakers fits.  It is magnitutes worse for people here
in Asia.

> I appreciate that it's free, but that doesn't necessarily mean criticism

	I don't believe the criticism is being "rejected".  Other people
simply disagree with you.

					Ed

---

From: Ed Greshko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 10:11:39 -0800 (GMT)

> Speaking of statements that are a potential embarrassment...

	Are you about to make one....  :-)

	Nothing of what you said had anything to do with the discussion.
But, you are free to assume anything you wish.  If you wish to continue
this line of discussion I'd suggest you take it off-line solely because
your remarks have nothing to do with pine and I doubt that others are
interested.  However, feel free to post to alt.flame or whatever.

	Regards,
		Ed

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert A. Rosenberg)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 94 04:37:13 GMT

In Article <[email-masked]>, Nancy McGough <[email-masked]> wrote:
>2] Develop standards for mail and news headers that are backward
>   compatible with existing use.  Since Newsgroups is so widely 
>   used in private mail messages, any header(s) that tells that a
>   message was both posted and mailed will need to be something
>   other than the Newsgroups header.  There's been a lot of good
>   discussion about this in comp.mail.headers.

The problem is that there are two conflicting meanings for the Newsgroup
header in an Email Message. If I reply-via-Email to an Article, it is the
Newsgroup Header of the message I am replying to. OTOH, if the Email is a
Dual Posting/Reply (such as is created by the use of a Cc Header in Pine)
then it lists the newsgroups that the message is being posted to as the
Email copy is being sent. It would be much simpler if Pine (and other
agents) that leave the Newsgroup in an Email Reply were to do so via the use
of separate X-Header fields that show the meaning. For Example,
X-In-Reply-To-Newsgroup for the Reply to Article case and X-Also-Posted-To
for the dual Post/Reply [The actual Header names are just examples]).

---

From: [email-masked] (David S. Eitelbach)
Date: 21 Nov 1994 20:46:07 -0800

It is my misfortune to have posted a problem that is seen as related
to an issue in a religious war. But that in no way excuses those who
could do something about it from being intellectually honest enough 
to listen openly to what I say has happened, and looking fairly and 
honestly into what can be done--without subsuming it in their jihad.

Mr. Majewski has suggested the need to understand the background and I
appreciate the need to do that now, after slogging through
comp.mail.headers. It is just as necessary for Pine people to look at 
what I say has happened without assuming it is just a smaller part of 
their religious war. It's not. I'm not in their religious war and don't
want to be. I just don't want my private email posted in newsgroups 
while everyone is arguing back and forth about arcane header issues.

Ed Greshko wrote:

> on my part...but my "innocent" users.

What a crock. 

We're talking about adding 1--maybe 3 toggles(?)--tops. One should do
it, I think. Or we could just change the default back to the way it was 
before. Fewer choices to confuse your users or--outrage you.

Many more toggles were added moving from Pine 3.89 to the new version.
(Users used to have to root around in .pinerc to find out how to set
things--much more confusing than the new configuration setup screen.)

Were your users thrown irretrievably into confusion with all those
new toggles? 

Did you make a fuss commensurate with the number of new toggles?

> that *really* doesn't need it.  

But it *does* need it, as I and others have explained. Your 
statement suggests that you still don't understand the problem.

> While un-scientific, my little experiment with my cc:Mail users
> proved to me that pine was not as evil that some people make it
> out to be.  

No one has said Pine is evil. Have you read my posts?

> The wording of the toggles and the possible combinations would 
> give some native English speakers fits.

So, you don't like Pine either?  Is it "evil"?

> It is magnitutes worse for people here in Asia.

Maybe you sell your users short.

> simply disagree with you.

A fair hearing of the problem, let alone of proposed solutions, has
not been granted by most (not all) posters in this thread. Thanks to 
those who did. (Not you, Ed)

David S. Eitelbach
[email-masked]

---

From: Ed Greshko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 16:01:38 -0800 (GMT)

> before. Fewer choices to confuse your users or--outrage you.

	I keep wondering why you find it necessary to include personal
attacks?  

> Were your users thrown irretrievably into confusion with all those

	There was, and frankly still is, some confusion.  However, since
the move from 3.89 to 3.90 brought about easier configuration and added
enhancements there really wasn't much to complain about.  Along with
that, I am not on the pine development team.  There was no previous
discussion as to how things should/would look.  

	I'll assure you there was confusion and problems when the
changes were made between 3.90 and 3.91 that involved how the lookups
in the password file were handled.  There may have been a discussion
about that on this list....but I don't recall.  

> Did you make a fuss commensurate with the number of new toggles?

	Only when I find them unnecessary.

> statement suggests that you still don't understand the problem.

	It quite apparent that not everyone agrees with you.  
 
> So, you don't like Pine either?  Is it "evil"?

	Intresting set of logic.  I make a simple statement about "some
native English speakers" and it equates to my not liking pine.  How
do you do that?  

> Maybe you sell your users short.

	Maybe you haven't worked outside of the USA for the past 7 years?
As a matter of fact, most of them do better than some of the native English
speakers I've encountered.  They tend to read the FAQs carefully...and they
tend to read the prompts presented to them.

> those who did. (Not you, Ed)

	I don't know....it seems as if the only way you would consider
this to be a fair hearing is if everyone were to agree with you.

	Regards,

		Ed

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Nov 1994 13:45:18 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Robert A.
Rosenberg) writes:

>Dual Posting/Reply (such as is created by the use of a Cc Header in Pine)...

As we have already discussed, the 'dual postihng/reply' is presumptuous
and confusing and should not be used.

And in any case:

There is only one established meaning, and it's not the one pine is
using.  When it's you vs everybody else, you will generally lose.  Pine
loses.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>

---

From: [email-masked] (Dennis M. Maurer)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 17:03:48 GMT

* * * A short review * * *

Ed wrote:

Dennis wrote:

Dennis M. Maurer
-- 

* * * And now, to today's post * * * 

Ed Greshko ([email-masked]) wrote:
: On Mon, 21 Nov 1994, Dennis M. Maurer wrote:

: > Speaking of statements that are a potential embarrassment...

: 	Are you about to make one....  :-)

No, you handled that...see above

: 	Nothing of what you said had anything to do with the discussion.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: But, you are free to assume anything you wish.  If you wish to continue
: this line of discussion I'd suggest you take it off-line solely because
: your remarks have nothing to do with pine and I doubt that others are
: interested.  However, feel free to post to alt.flame or whatever.

: 	Regards,
: 		Ed

Ed,
You miss the point, the whole discussion is about the right to privacy.

You also ask me to take it off-line, when the problem is that off-line
messages are somehow getting put back on-line. I find this a dubious
solution.

But you are right, others may not be interested in my opinion of your
opinions. I will take this off-line, and trust you will do the same. 

Dennis M. Maurer
--

---

From: [email-masked] (David S. Eitelbach)
Date: 22 Nov 1994 10:57:03 -0800

> I keep wondering why you find it necessary to include personal

This is disingenuous: you inserted yourself and your posts are 
goading and supercilious in parts.

> 	Only when I find them unnecessary.

Did you evaluate all 64 new settings with the same vigor with which 
you hack away at this one?  Well, of course not.  Something else is 
at stake here now, isn't it?

Referring to the massive upgrade from 3.89 to 3.9x, we now have
the following in the configuration setup screens (FIVE of 'em):

5  Rule Sets
21 Value Settings (or similar)
38 Toggles
------------------------------
64 different settings, total.

You would have us believe one more (or three, possibly--but unlikely)
would be outrageously excessive.  I say that's a non-starter.

> this to be a fair hearing is if everyone were to agree with you.

I don't want everyone to agree; I want a fair hearing of my complaint
*on its own terms*, not dismissal of it as a side issue in a bloody
holy war.  Some have listened openly, but it appears those in a
position to add a toggle aren't listening openly.

I'm having a tough enough time of it as it is without having to keep 
swatting at flies. I'd appreciate it if you'd get out of the road.

David S. Eitelbach
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (R. Stewart Ellis)
Date: 23 Nov 94 02:59:26 GMT

>  Gopher,chimera,nn,tin,jove,modems, free code is best!/________/ /  /  / /

Well, I thought it was private mail.  I was tricked by receiving private
mail with a CC to info-pine.  I think you people are trying to confuse me.
:|

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 20:39:57 -0800

> position to add a toggle aren't listening openly.

Your complaint was heard quite some time ago.

Now pay attention to the answer:

The only possible ``toggle'' would be one which turns off the ability to 
follow-up to news postings.

We think that a news reader which does not allow you to post follow-ups
isn't very useful.  If that's what you really want, just erase the
nntp-server variable.  Then you won't have any more news posting.

---

From: [email-masked] (R. Stewart Ellis)
Date: 23 Nov 94 02:51:09 GMT

See, this message is a perfect example of what is wrong with the pine
philosophy of news=mail.  I got this in private email, and unsure whether it
was really supposed to be private or not, I assumed it was private and kept
the response private.  Mail should be mail.  News should be mail.  If it is
both, the only reliable way to tell is if the author tells you.  When I send
it on both channels I say "Posted and mailed."  Of course if it comes from
nntp, then I know it is news.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Kari E. Hurtta)
Date: 22 Nov 1994 14:07:26 GMT

>>>>> "Rahul" == Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]> writes
>>>>> in comp.mail.pine and comp.mail.headers:

Rahul» As we have already discussed, the 'dual postihng/reply' is presumptuous
Rahul» and confusing and should not be used.

Rahul» And in any case:

Rahul» There is only one established meaning, and it's not the one pine is
Rahul» using.  When it's you vs everybody else, you will generally lose.  Pine
Rahul» loses.

Well. Dual post/reply is also possible in nn and GNUS.

[ Followups-to: comp.mail.headers and news.software.readers]

--
- Kari E. Hurtta                             /  Elämä on monimutkaista
  [email-masked]			     puh. (90) 1929 658
  {hurtta,root,[email-masked]

---

From: Mike Brudenell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 09:17:00 +0000 (GMT)

On 23 Nov 1994, R. Stewart Ellis wrote:

> Of course if it comes from

But what if you are reading news using IMAP rather than NNTP?

In general you cannot rely on the delviery/access protocol to infer the 
"mailness" or "newsness" of a message (ie e-mail message or news 
article).  Instead some attribute of the message itself must be looked 
for.

Mike Brudenell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Computing Service, University of York, Heslington, York, YO1 5DD, UK
Phone: +44-1904-433811  FAX: +44-1904-432767

---

From: Rick Nebel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 09:35:45 -0600 (CST)

=============================================================================
Is anyone else tired of having to wade through this fight in their mailboxes?
=============================================================================

---

From: "David S. Eitelbach" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 08:16:21 -0800 (PST)

I imagine so. Even Ed and I are tired of it and have agreed via
private email to knock it off.

But as far as it being *in your mailbox* --you have to take that up
with the Pine people. (Lotsa luck!) They have a vision of news and 
mail inexorably converging and have somehow tied comp.mail.pine to 
your mailbox. I didn't do that. I merely POSTed an article to a 
NEWSgroup requesting a default be set more conservatively. I take no 
responsibility for it being in Rick Nebel's or anyone else's MAILbox.

David S. Eitelbach
[email-masked]

---

From: Ed Greshko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 01:23:30 -0800 (GMT)

Hummmm....Yes.  One of the reasons I wrote my "final" word.

	If you really wanted to have some fun you should have been tuned
into the ietf-822 list.   

	Good night, David.  ;-)

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Nov 1994 21:07:51 GMT

In
<[email-masked]>

>nntp-server variable.  Then you won't have any more news posting.

I believe the confusion is arising because a *mail reader* is allowing
follow-ups to News.  Pine is acting as both mail reader and News
reader, but presenting the folow-up prompt indiscriminately regardless
of its current role.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Nov 1994 21:05:20 GMT

In <[email-masked]>
[email-masked] ("Steven D. Majewski") writes:

>If Pine did *everything* you 
>asked, it would still be confronted with an ambiguous situation...

Suppose you create a unified News/mail system, which comprises:

     1. A human being.
     2. The mail reader elm.
     3. The news reader nn.

Now you have to agree that this system, let's call it HEN
(human-elm-nn) integrates News and email, i.e., this system handles
both.  HEN has unergone extensive field-testing, and has not been
seen to get confused about what is private email and what is not.

What is the fundamental difference between pine and HEN, that causes
pine to consider situations ambiguous that do not confuse HEN?  If this
question can be answered, a solution can be easily found.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>

---

From: [email-masked] (David S. Eitelbach)
Date: 23 Nov 1994 08:47:34 -0800

> nntp-server variable.  Then you won't have any more news posting.

First of all, thank you for speaking to the issue. I think what you have
suggested may not do what I want. I don't want to make it so I can't post
(although you may :), but rather, I want to prevent others from being able
to publicly post my private email to them. How can this be accomplished?
Is Mr. Peter da Silva, who just posted what's below in comp.mail.headers,
not on the right track? It looks eminently reasonable to me.

"This question should be made *optional*, with the default being *off*.
Then any user that is presented with this message has explicitly stated
(by turning the option *on*) that they understand it and can handle it. 
Users who don't know any better will never accidentally post to news."

David S. Eitelbach
[email-masked]

---

From: Nancy McGough <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Nov 1994 22:32:45 GMT

>follow-up to news postings.

Is it truly not possible to change the Pine code so that it does something 
like this?  Suppose the variable is called "post-from-message-folder":

if in newsgroup 
    reply means ask user whether to post, mail, or do both
else (i.e., if in inbox or message folder)
    if post-from-message-folder=true
        reply means ask user whether to post, mail, or do both
    else
        reply means mail
    fi
fi

--
 /\_/\
( o.o )   Nancy McGough       <URL:http://www.jazzie.com/ii/>
 > ^ <    Infinite Ink        <URL:ftp://ftp.halcyon.com/pub/ii>

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 23:10:55 -0800

> if in newsgroup 

The problem is that this conditional is unimplementable.

It is not deterministic that something is "mail" or "news", except in a
very restricted environment.  You then get into the business of deciding
what to do about false positives or false negatives.  What is particularly
frightening is that new environments being deployed use storage 
technology that are of the non-deterministic form. 

We would then have to deal with bug reports of the form: "Pine refuses to
let me send a reply because it says ``this message is news''" or "Pine
refuses to let me follow up to a news posting because it says "this
message is mail"''. 

This may satisfy a few noisy people who use broken news readers to send
mail, and who refuse to re-configure them not to do the broken thing.  But
it would lead to a support nightmare for us.  Worse, it makes us unable to
do things we need to do for the people who pay our salaries to work on Pine.

It's better to let the noisy people have their flame.  If necessary,
there's always the silent treatment.  After a while when they find that
nobody is paying attention to them, they'll go away. 

This isn't to say we aren't going to be refining the behavior of Reply. 
We will, as Terry Gray outlined earlier in this newsgroup.

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 22:43:54 -0800

On 23 Nov 1994, David S. Eitelbach wrote:
> I don't want to make it so I can't post

You are asking for the impossible.  Anyone can post any data to which they
have physical access.  There is nothing that Pine can do to prevent it, 
since the user could post without using Pine!

If you don't want a message posted, do the following:

1) Make sure your messages don't have a "Newsgroups:" header unless they
   are going to news.  If you use Pine, this is done for you.  So, 
   consider using Pine instead of Tin to read news.

2) If you send a private reply to a news posting, and you are concerned
   about it becoming private, say something like: ``This is a private
   response, please don't post it.'' at the start of your message.

I do both.  There are frequently instances in which I need to make an
``off the record'' response to someone with information that is not public
knowledge.

Some individuals do neither, and they are the ones who have the problem. 
They use some other newsreader that puts Newsgroups: headers in mail,
assuming that a mail reader won't interpret it as an indication of public
posting.  This is a big assumption to make.  It is not justified by any
RFC. 

Pine didn't create the problem; this assumption was rendered false by
certain mail readers years ago.  Pine just seems to be the first widely
(massively?) disseminated mailer that defies this assumption.

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 23:27:59 -0800

> question can be answered, a solution can be easily found.

HEN does not support a number of environments which Pine supports; it only
works in a very narrowly constrained environment.  HEN can not without
encountering the same problems, only worse due to its modality (see next
paragraph). 

HEN requires you to go modal; that is, to say ``put me in news mode'', and
``put me in email mode''.  Note that the user has to set the mode by
direct action, and can not go from one mode to the other without
completely exiting the current mode and losing all the state.   HEN also 
has a different command set depending upon the mode, and very different 
behaviors.

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Nov 1994 11:54:02 GMT

In
<[email-masked]>
Mark Crispin <[email-masked]> writes:

>``put me in email mode''.

Quite perceptive Mark, but not the whole story.  Within HEN there
is knowledge of what is being read -- News or email -- but HEN as
a system is like pine, in that it could be accessing either, or
both at the same time.

The critical difference is:

     HEN never posts a Usenet sollowup from a saved file.  It posts
     Usenet followups only when getting a Usenet posting from a News
     server, e.g., an nntp server or a file server with a News spool.
     Replies to saved files are sent only by email, and cc'd only
     to selected people, never duplicated to Usenet.

There is no need to remember where a saved file came from.

One possible definition of "saved file" is "a file in the user's
private file area".
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>

---

From: [email-masked] (R. Stewart Ellis)
Date: 24 Nov 94 12:59:21 GMT

>do things we need to do for the people who pay our salaries to work on Pine.

I can reconfigure mine, but I have no problem, I hardly ever send anything
in email that I am not willing to have blabbed to the world.  The problem is
the majority of people are using news clients that do the broken thing.
Your arguments are suggestive of someone who designed a new car that gets
better mileage and performance, but must be driven on the left side of the
road, and then insisting everyone else in the other cars is crazy because
they refuse to change over to your way of doing things, and whenever you
crash into one of them, screaming and ranting that they should not have been
on the left side of your road.

 >nobody is paying attention to them, they'll go away. 

Don't bet on it.

 >We will, as Terry Gray outlined earlier in this newsgroup. 

Perhaps this is enough to satisfy us.  Share some ideas with us.  It
wouldn't obligate you to follow our suggestions anymore than the current
noisefest, but it might satisfy us.

When you are selling a new idea to people who are comfortable with the
modality of news and mail, persuasion and compromise would be preferable to
coercion.

---

From: [email-masked] (R. Stewart Ellis)
Date: 24 Nov 94 13:07:05 GMT

>has a different command set depending upon the mode, and very different 

But some of us are very comfortable with modality here.  I am having a hard
time with the equation you are pushing:
 one-to-many=one-to-one

It just does not compute for me.

---

From: [email-masked] (R. Stewart Ellis)
Date: 24 Nov 94 13:14:03 GMT

>a system is like pine, in that it could be accessing either, or

But Rahul, I think this is the thing they are proudest of.

 >There is no need to remember where a saved file came from.

I would be happiest if I could deprive pine of all knowledge of news and
newsgroups.  The way I use tools is:  edit with jove, news with nn, mail
with pine.  If I wanted one tool for everything I would choose emacs on VMS
(the set/everything OS).  I want modality on some matters so that I do not
have to lose time thinking about things like is this private or public.

 >One possible definition of "saved file" is "a file in the user's

Good Answer! (but mail is still in the spool).

---

From: [email-masked] (Ken Weaverling)
Date: 24 Nov 1994 11:58:51 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>,
David S. Eitelbach <[email-masked]> wrote:
>NEWSgroup requesting a default be set more conservatively. 

This newsgroup is gatewayed to the mailing list. That mailing list was
around eons before the newsgroup. Some people don't have access to news
and STILL get it via the mailing list.

About a year ago, on the mailing list, we discussed the merits of proposing 
a news group. It was agreed that the group wouldn't be very useful unless it
was gatewayed to the mailing list AND the folks at Washington would 
participate in it.

Be thankful that we can get so close to people that actually develop this 
stuff, whether or not we agree.  Wait until Microsoft gets involved in
Internet software.  Doesn't work right? Tough shit, it might be wrong,
but it will be the "standard."

-- 
Ken Weaverling          [email-masked] |*|  Wilmington: +1 302 573-5460
    Manager of Computer Services       |*|     Stanton: +1 302 454-3978
   Stanton/Wilmington Campuses of      |*|       WHOIS: KJW
Delaware Technical & Community College |*|        http://www.dtcc.edu/~weave

---

From: [email-masked] (Ken Weaverling)
Date: 24 Nov 1994 12:18:12 -0500

Pine has altered my behaviour in a lot of respects -- for the better. I 
get a lot of questions in email from students and staff here. I set up a
local newsgroup to answer these things. I get email, I strip out info 
identifying the user, I add the newsgroup line to the header, Bcc: the
original user, and answer the question.  The answer gets posted so 
everyone else can benefit from it.

Almost all of our new users now use Pine to use mail AND read news. This
is a tremendous win for us, via support. Only have to teach them one 
thing. As they get smarter and need more, they can graduate to trn, or
whatever.  Those of us who use stuff like trn (like I am now) should know
better.  We all have the sources to our newsreaders that are "broken" so
it isn't too difficult to stop them from adding a newsgroup line to 
private replies.

Sorry, but I changed my opinion on this. At first, I was pissed as hell
by the behaviour of pine. But as I read this thread, and more importantly,
seen how much pine has saved my department in support costs, I am DAMN
happy it works like it does.  

The only suggestion I have is to change the question/response from a
Y/N situation to something like.

Where do you want your reply sent? Public news, Mail, Both, Cancel (PMB^C)

That would catch people blindly hitting Y because something changed, and
they can say "Oy, what's all this then mate?" and stop and read and think
about what it is that is going on.

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert A. Rosenberg)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 94 22:02:09 GMT

In Article <[email-masked]>, Nancy McGough <[email-masked]> wrote:
>[email-masked] (Kari E. Hurtta) writes:
>>Rahula As we have already discussed, the 'dual postihng/reply' is presumptuous
>>Rahula and confusing and should not be used.
>
>NN does not really simultaneously post and mail a message.
>After composing a followup you are asked for email addresses
>to cc.  The mail message has a different Message-ID than the
>news article; and you can set up your aux script to put in 
>extra info (my aux script adds a line at the top of the body 
>that says the message is a copy of one I posted to <whatever> 
>newsgroup).

I think this sequence qualifies as a dual posting/reply since the same text
creation is used to generate that Post and the Email'ed Reply. It is not the
same as my creating/uploading the Text once to do the post and a second time
to do the Email. I supply the text once and then I am run though the Email
and the Posting paths to supply the information on where to send it. The aux
script appending the indicia to the message is an alternative to this being
documented in the Email and News Headers via currently nonexistent/non-RFCed
Headers. The generation of separate Message-IDs for the News and Email
versions is acceptable since due to the modification of the Email Text, they
are not the same message (NN just gave you a fast path method of recycling
the Post text to become the Email text and logically it acted as if you have
sent the text as two separate operations).

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Nov 1994 22:05:55 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Ken Weaverling) writes:

>stuff, whether or not we agree.

Agreed.  The pine folks sometimes seem to be not listening, but I
believe they are listening very intently.  Pine's elegance as a mail
user agent could not have happened in a vacuum.

The problem with gatewaying News to email usually arises because the
email and News models are so dissimilar.  Email software is generally
designed -- with good reason -- to ensure that the user sees every
message, and no message is deleted without careful consideration.  News
software is generally designed -- with good reason -- to ensure that
the user sees no more than he explicitly wishes to, and that he finds
it easy to skip entire discussion threads, all postings from selected
people, etc.

The gatewaying leads to a serious conflict between the models.  Usually
it's the people who read via email who find it hard to cope.  They are
seeing too much.  Their email software is doing its job -- but it's the
wrong job.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>

---

From: Barry Cornelius <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 1994 09:06:46 +0000 (GMT)

I have to endorse the comments given below by Ken Weaverling.  Much of 
what he says for Delaware Technical & Community College is equally 
applicable here.

One of the points he makes concerns the prompt:
   Post follow-up message to news group(s)?
He says:
> Y/N situation to something like [the following prompt].

At Durham, we have a hacked local version of Pine 3.91 in which the 
prompt has been changed to:
   Press Y to follow-up message to newsgroup(s) or N to reply to sender?
I know this is awful, but it is the minimum change that gives more
guidance to the user.

It was Terry Ratcliffe (University of Newcastle, UK) who suggested to me
that the text of the prompt needed changing.  My view was to use letters
other than Y and N.  So, I sent the following comment to
[email-masked] on September 17th: 
> ... I would suggest responses other than Y or N, 
> e.g., given the prompt "Followup to newsgroups or Reply to author?", 
> F leads to "Newsgrps: aaaa" and R leads to "To: Joe.Sender".

Later, Terry Gray replied saying:
> We also weren't sure in this case whether to go
> with a three-state prompt and allow "both".

So I would now like the prompt to be:
   Reply to author, Follow-up to newsgroup(s), or Both?
and the options in the two line menu at the bottom give the possible
responses as ^C Cancel, R Reply, F Follow-up and B Both. 

--
Barry Cornelius                      Telephone: (0191 or +44 191) 374 4717
Academic Support Group, IT Service,            IT Service Office: 374 2892   
Science Site, University of Durham,                          Fax: 374 3741
Durham, DH1 3LE, UK                   E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (David S. Eitelbach)
Date: 25 Nov 1994 13:49:09 -0800

> > I don't want to make it so I can't post (although you may :), 
> > but rather, I want to prevent others from being able to publicly
> > post my private email to them. How can this be accomplished?

Mark Crispin wrote:
> You are asking for the impossible.

It has seemed a Sisyphean task.

> Anyone can post any data to which they have physical access.  
> There is nothing that Pine can do to prevent it, since the user 
> could post without using Pine!

You skew my meaning, which since you are a smart man, I assume you
did maliciously. Pine 3.89 did not have the problem. I still think
the new version doesn't need to have it. I seem not to be alone in this.

>    consider using Pine instead of Tin to read news.

I have tried this and IT WORKS! I sincerely thank you for pointing this 
out (50-100 posts into the topic). I will do this, since some at Pine are 
blinkered and will not accommodate.

> ``off the record'' response to someone with information that is not public

I'm glad this works for you. It probably won't for me as in my scenario
we are talking about people who aren't reading the Pine prompts in the
first place. They're probably not going to read my cautions either. But 
otherwise it is also a good suggestion.

Again, I sincerely thank you for providing a workaround.

David S. Eitelbach
[email-masked]

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Nov 1994 09:21:52 GMT

>article). 

Is IMAP discarding information?

Consider this scenario:

     - The SMTP server on port 25, and the nntp server on port 119,
       both accept incoming connections, accept the email message or
       News posting, and put it into a common spool directory.

     - Another daemon process now extracts files from this common
       directory and, by looking at each file's contents alone -- tried
       to figure out what to do with it.

It would not get very far, right?  The out-of-band information that
was lost is critical and should not be discarded.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>