Re: [Mailman-developers] Bug: includes Reply-To in administrative messages
Mailman should never add a Reply-to header. Please see the seminal paper on this:
"Reply-to" Munging Considered Harmful <http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html>
While I've certainly been a strong detractor of Reply-to ever since reading that article, there are still those who do not agree. I think adding the reply-to header should be an option, although it should be strongly discouraged.
Ugh, I just went to the discussion forum off that page for the first time in quite a while. I see where well over a year ago I suggested that replies to a list should not be sent out to people who are in the TO or CC line (at least as an option). I'm pretty sure that feature is no longer in Mailman, and it should definitely go back in. If someone has time to Mailman hack in the near future, please consider adding that :)
John
"JV" == John Viega <jtv2j@cs.virginia.edu> writes:
"JV" == John Viega <jtv2j@cs.virginia.edu> writes:
JV> While I've certainly been a strong detractor of Reply-to ever
JV> since reading that article, there are still those who do not
JV> agree. I think adding the reply-to header should be an
JV> option, although it should be strongly discouraged.Strongly, strongly discouraged. Even include a link that to page and some text saying: "You don't really want to do this, but if you think you do, read this document first". :-)
JV> Ugh, I just went to the discussion forum off that page for the
JV> first time in quite a while. I see where well over a year ago
JV> I suggested that replies to a list should not be sent out to
JV> people who are in the TO or CC line (at least as an option).
JV> I'm pretty sure that feature is no longer in Mailman, and it
JV> should definitely go back in. If someone has time to Mailman
JV> hack in the near future, please consider adding that :)I guess you mean Mailman should check the To/CC address against the list of people in the expanded list, and winnow out duplicates. That would be pretty cool.
-Barry
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, John Viega wrote:
While I've certainly been a strong detractor of Reply-to ever since reading that article, there are still those who do not agree. I think adding the reply-to header should be an option, although it should be strongly discouraged.
As someone suggested (in a subsequent note, i think - i'm catching up on ones i've previously scanned, here), i mention in the short description that "poster" is *strongly* recommended, and included a bit more explanation and the URL barry came up with in the long description.
(And while i'm at it, someone might enjoy seeing the refinement of the long description presentation i made last week - the gui presentation of the current setting is used, instead of the data values. See http://www.python.org/mailman/admin/postal and click on one of the 'details' for an example...)
Ugh, I just went to the discussion forum off that page for the first time in quite a while. I see where well over a year ago I suggested that replies to a list should not be sent out to people who are in the TO or CC line (at least as an option). I'm pretty sure that feature is no longer in Mailman, and it should definitely go back in. If someone has time to Mailman hack in the near future, please consider adding that :)
This would not be hard! Also would not be high priority. And i have to say, when streaming through my inbox, i often use the fact that i got a message twice as the cue that i'm among the direct recipients (something i noticed a lot today with mailman-developer's mail:). I'm not sure i'd want to be without this, despite the inbox clutter...
Ken
"KM" == Ken Manheimer <klm@cnri.reston.va.us> writes:
KM> As someone suggested (in a subsequent note, i think - i'm
KM> catching up on ones i've previously scanned, here), i mention
KM> in the short description that "poster" is *strongly*
KM> recommended, and included a bit more explanation and the URL
KM> barry came up with in the long description.The biggest problem that I have with Reply-to munging is that I use Reply-to to control which of many inboxes I want replies to show up at. I think this is a valid for this header by end-users. Other people use it because their mail s/w is broken beyond their repair. I've had people who just cannot convince their sysadmins to fix their mailers but still want people to be able to reply to them. So they add a Reply-to they know to be valid. If Mailman munges Reply-to it's possible that those folks will just lose their messages. So at the very least, if optional Reply-to is enabled, Mailman shouldn't add or change a Reply-to if the original message had this header.
KM> (And while i'm at it, someone might enjoy seeing the
KM> refinement of the long description presentation i made last
KM> week - the gui presentation of the current setting is used,
KM> instead of the data values. See
KM> http://www.python.org/mailman/admin/postal and click on one of
KM> the 'details' for an example...)Not bad!
KM> This would not be hard! Also would not be high priority. And
KM> i have to say, when streaming through my inbox, i often use
KM> the fact that i got a message twice as the cue that i'm among
KM> the direct recipients (something i noticed a lot today with
KM> mailman-developer's mail:). I'm not sure i'd want to be
KM> without this, despite the inbox clutter...It might be a pain (or slow) but a per-user option to control this would be the way to go.
-Barry
participants (3)
-
Barry A. Warsaw -
John Viega -
Ken Manheimer