[Mailman-Developers] Re: ML replies

[Greg Stein]

Um... problem reset...

My real point wasn't to have *Mailman* set any of these headers, but the
script that generates the message(!). Mailman can comfortably ignore any
Reply-To or Mail-Followup-To message. Just operate it like a normal list.

The script that gathers up the CVS data and ships it off can insert the two
headers into the outbound messages.

Cheers,
-g

p.s. yes, maybe Mailman can also set those headers for normal operation to
capture the bozos that send mail to the list; but that is a separate
question and (obviously from the responses) not a straight-forward one.


On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 09:34:19AM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> At 12:16 PM -0400 7/1/00, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> 
> >     GS> What about the Mail-Followup-To header? That can be helpful
> >     GS> for some newsreaders (e.g. Mutt). Dunno how many observe it.
> >
> >It looks like VM/Emacs doesn't (which is what I use), but I'm sure
> >that'd be easy to add.  I would be most interested to know what
> >Outlook and NS do with it.
> >
> >However Mail-Followup-To: isn't in any RFC that I can find, not even
> >2076.
> 
> It's non-standard, and in fact, arguably non-compliant, since any 
> unofficial header should be in the X-headername form.
> 
> >So there is clearly no header that will support the functionality we
> >want.
> 
> This is a case where Reply-To is the correct header to set, or at 
> least, least incorrect.
> 
> >One potential solution for Mailman might be to lie about the To:
> >address.  So in the above scenario, the message would have a To: field
> >set to python-dev even though the message would actually be sent to
> >the python-checkins membership.
> 
> um, uh, well... I don't like it. Even if you had Sender: and List-ID 
> set properly, it still seems wrong.
> 
> For this case, I think the best setup is Reply-to, because that's 
> waht you want: it came FROM this place, but responses go to this 
> other place. The proper answer is setting reply-to, not attempting to 
> rearrange the concept of "from this place".
> 
> As a strong proponent of "don't use reply-to!" -- this is a case 
> where it's the proper answer. It's not perfect by any means, since 
> reply-to coerces someone away from replying privately, but in this 
> situation, that's better than not doing it.
> 
> -- 
> Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
> Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
> 
> And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
> and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'"

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/