[MPlayer-users] pre8 crashes on "Large H.264 MPEG-4" Hubble .mp4 file

[Ivan Kowalenko]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Aug 23, 2006, at 05.48, Denis Vlasenko wrote:

> On Wednesday 23 August 2006 10:49, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  
> wrote:
>>>> responses such as this, but it is blatantly incorrect behaviour  
>>>> for the
>>>> vast majority of mailing list replies. (I, for one, would be - and
>>>> sometimes am - quite irritated to receive a private copy of a  
>>>> message
>>>> sent to a mailing list to which I am subscribed. At best, a private
>>>
>>> Why you are irritated when you get two copies?
>>
>> Because it's a waste of my time and resources. I'm subscribed to  
>> dozens
>> of mailing lists. Imagine what would happen if everybody started  
>> replying
>> to my mails with two copies.
>
> You will get maybe about 10 extra mails of of daily total of 600?

Yes, but by relying on that, it's entirely possible that you'll miss  
other issues on the mailing list that YOU could possibly contribute to.

>>>> Also, no one removed your address from the reply; it was never  
>>>> there in
>>>> the first place. This is because of the Reply-To header, which  
>>>> (properly
>>>> IMO) is set to include the mailing list address when it goes  
>>>> through the
>>>> list.
>>>
>>> But my name IS in the From: field, no?
>>
>> Yes, but with mailing lists, it is expected that the reply will go to
>> the list.
>
> I suppose lkml is another good example of well-known mailing list.
> These are the rules which are in effect there:

[snip]

>> Please don't assume everyone subscribes to LKML, or that
>> everything crafted to be threaded more-or-less-correctly
>> was really crafted with any kind of "reply" command.  :)
> Um, that's exactly why reply-to-all should be used, because not  
> everyone
> who posts to LKML subscribes to the list.  Otherwise, you'd either  
> have
> to make everyone who posts a question or a bug report subscribe to the
> list to see the replies, or place the burden on the responder to keep
> track of who wants to be cc'ed and who doesn't.
> Beaised, even if you disagree with them, when you post to LKML you  
> abide
> by the LKML rules.  It's up to you to know what those are.

For the record, with this message, I hit "Reply to all," and it did  
nothing. Your CC data is stripped out by the mailing list's (whatever  
it is that sends messages to everyone... a server, I guess). When  
replying to about ten messages over several mailing lists, copying  
over EVERYONE'S address to make sure they get a copy would take me  
quite some time.

[snip]

>>> I do not accuse people doing this intentionally.
>>> It happens automatically when one uses "Reply" instead of "Reply  
>>> to all".
>>
>> I use neither. I use List Reply, as I think everybody should.
>
> Do as you please, but replies to my mails which have my name  
> neither in To:
> nor in CC: will most likely not be read most of the time, or read
> with a delay of many days.

Look, I hate to put it this bluntly, but the mailing list has  
functioned perfectly well for several years using this current  
method. We've never had anyone complain before, so we should probably  
assume that you are in the minority of people who want this change.  
However, I do not. I feel that by replying to CC: only, we just let  
people care only about their own problems, instead of making them  
scan the mailing list, and possibly running into something else that  
they can help with. For every problem I submit to the mailing list, I  
usually find a few more that I can help with. If I just read replies  
to my problem, then I wouldn't be contributing back to the community  
(though, I admit, it is a meager contribution).

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure the way the mailing list is going to be  
changed based on the problems of a small minority when the status quo  
hasn't brought up any issues. This is not the LKML. Likewise, the  
Newton Talk mailing list isn't the MPML. The MPML and the MythTV ML  
both have non-top-posting rules, and it has worked out perfectly well  
for them. The NTML mailing list, however, does not. The dynamics of  
the NTML are different enough from the MPML and the MTML that it's  
not really necessary. The LKML probably *does* have enough demand for  
support for CC:, so it's worth including there.

So, please stop comparing the requests on the LKML to the MPML,  
because the two mailing lists aren't the same. Different dynamics,  
different community, different loads. It's like my comparing the  
towing power of a 4 cylinder Toyota Echo to that of a Mack 16-wheeler.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFE7HhCh/R/wkI6oPQRAgXDAJ4sqhH3xNEzUOmg14oUHbqjMOhAfACgmaIn
TN097zfv5sBocAxzM10Z8fw=
=Ge14
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----