[Mailman-Developers] feature request: new option forreply_goes_to_list

[Simone Piunno]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 02:12:05PM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:

> > Thanks to the multiple reply-to feature we're preventing nothing.
>  
> Sorry, not true.
> When you set a reply-to to any value, you are preventing the user to chose
> between reply to list/all or just replying to the original sender.

bogus argument:
when you don't set a reply-to you are preventing the user to choose
between reply to originasender/all or just replying to the list.

you can't have everything on single button, so you are always preventing 
the alternative use the from button, whatever it was.

> Reply-To is typically  not conditional (except for good MUAs  like mine that
> can be told to ignore it altogether)

sorry, can you rephrase?




On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 09:26:58PM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote:

> Given a list which munges Reply-To in any manner, how do I:
> 
>   a) Move a thread on to a different list?

people will move if you ask and they want (they are free to choose,
you are not free to force them).  With multiple reply-to you can
start cross-posting and the reply to the reply to your message 
could be on the 2nd list only.
This is again a matter of policy and you could like this kind of 
things but another admin could even want to completely forbid'em.
Anyway, I grant you that this case is messed up by reply-to-list.

>   b) Ensure that all replies default to me only and not the list (so
>   that I may summarise later)?

Agreed

>   c) Trivially (default command) reply to author only?

bogus, see the answer to Marc.

>   d) Remove myself from followups to a thread?

just avoid using reply-to... by default they will reply to the list.




On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 11:52:38AM +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Sounds like you've never seen a list blow up in a mail loop because of
> some broken "vacation" autoresponder robot which sends automated
> responses to the Reply-To: address.

no, I've never seen a loop caused by this, but I've seen several loops.
If you are really concerned by loops you could use the max-per-day 
feature already in place for -owner autoresponder.

> e) Cross-post a discussion across two mailing lists? (Sometimes that is
>    the right thing to do.)

sorry, not sure I understand.... 
 - I send the message "To: a,b" and "Reply-To: a,b"
 - Reply-To: is left untouched by Mailman (even if set with reply-to-list)
 - People will reply to "a,b" by default, not carrying on the Reply-To:
   (regardless of its value, so configuration doesn't matter)
where is the problem?

> f) Ensure that my backup email address gets copied on a thread?
>    (E.g. Because my primary email address which is subscribed to the
>    list is temporarily broken or something.)

again, you can only affect the 1st reply...
replies to replies to your message won't see your reply-to:
thanks to multiple reply-to having another address copied 
in the 1st reply is not a problem.





Summary:


Reply-to-munging with multiple address prevents those 2 cases:

>   a) Move a thread on to a different list?

>   b) Ensure that all replies default to me only and not the list (so
>   that I may summarise later)?

but on the usability side, the very common reply-to-list case is
made more difficult for the user (he can't 1-click-reply to the 
list only [1]: he has to reply to all and then remove the unwanted
addresses).

Admins have then a tradeoff: "what has more value for my users?"

This is a matter of policy and there are certainly lists where
most users would answer 

"I prefer my freedom to do things like moving threads and 
summarizing and don't care for usability" 

and there are also many lists where they'd asnwer 

"I prefer usability and I'll never use those 2 exotic cases 
where pristine reply-to is required".

Policy decisions should be left to the admin.





[1]
practically noone uses mutt and the nice L key feature.
I'm the only one :)

-- 
Adde parvum parvo magnus acervus erit.
Simone Piunno, FerraraLUG - http://members.ferrara.linux.it/pioppo