New get_iplayer website & forums

[Philip Kane]

I completely agree with all that has been said re raising the profile of the
project. DON'T DO IT. Keep the obscurity; even the WebPVR was a step in the
wrong direction I think. CLI only is pretty obscure; the reason I think it
has been allowed to continue for so long. Perhaps the name of the project
should also be changed? DO NOT ADVERTISE IT PLEASE.

I am well happy with the mailing list as it is too; I filter messages
automatically into their own folder, so no clutter in my inbox; they are
very easy to search and categorise in even the most basic email client. What
more could you ask for?

-----Original Message-----
From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-bounces at lists.infradead.org] On Behalf
Of David Woodhouse
Sent: 16 July 2013 23:40
To: Jonathan H
Cc: get_iplayer at lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: New get_iplayer website & forums

On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 22:36 +0100, Jonathan H wrote:
> 
> And this mailing list is doing my head in - the software is so
> hopelessly antiquated, it won't even tag subject lines with
> "get_iplayer".

Why would it do that? The reverse-path of the message clearly identifies
where it comes from, so if you want to filter list traffic into a
separate folder you can do it cleanly and safely without false positives
when someone explicitly adds you to Cc.

Adding noise to the subject line is just pointless.

>  And it also defaults to replying to the sender, not the
> list (as I just noticed after my post failed to appear after 8 hours!)

Your mailer has a 'private reply' and a 'reply to all' feature, surely?
If you choose 'private reply' (often just labelled 'reply'), why would
you be surprised at what it does?

Some mailing lists do have an abusive setup which hijacks the *private*
reply and makes it go back to the list. And thus, things which were
meant to be *private* can end up being sent to the public list. That's a
stupid way to configure a list.

Yes, it might be inconvenient occasionally if someone forgets how to
drive their own mail client and uses the private reply instead of the
group reply. But the failure mode is relatively harmless - you just send
the message again, correctly this time. The failure mode when a private
message ends up in public can be *much* worse.

-- 
dwmw2