Sven Anderson writes:
- Receiver clean-up (if Reply-To munging is NOT used)
So what about an option to clean-up the receivers list in Mailman, that is Mailman removes all To/CC addresses which are members of the list?
IIRC, if the user sets their subscription to "no-dupes", that user's address will be removed from the addressee list, as well as from the list of addresses that Mailman actually distributes to the post to.
Rather than have this be a list-level option, I would say that you should set the default for new subscribers to no-dupes. (This may also require a patch to Mailman for convenient administration.)
- Add non-member-senders to Reply-To (if Reply-To munging IS used)
One of the annoying things using Reply-To munging in open lists is, that you cannot easily include external authors in replies, whether you are using reply-to or reply-to-all in your MUA. It would be nice, if the sender could be added to the Reply-To addresses in the case, that the sender is not a member of the list, so that replies automatically go to the list AND the author.
This is simply not enough. You need to add all the non-list addressees, too. That is equivalent to (1).
- Add sender to Reply-To (if Reply-To munging IS used) As an
variation to the proposal 2) it also would be nice to have the sender in general be added to the Reply-To header. That would make replies behave similar as the reply-to-all in case of no Reply-To munging.
In other words, you are suggesting that Mailman should munge Reply-To simply because some users don't know where the reply-to-all function is.
I realize that non-technical users are human beings and have their rights, but it's the MUA vendors, not Mailman, who violate those rights by supplying broken software.
If you have a list where the majority of users are so non-technical that they can't find reply-to-all, just munge and don't worry about it.