[Mailman-Developers] Feature request: Reply-To Munging etc.

Sven Anderson sven at anderson.de
Sat Mar 10 17:30:40 CET 2007

Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I think you're both right :).  Mailman 2.1 will strip recipients from 
> the CC header if explicitly named recipients are members of the list and 
> have nodup set.  But Mailman won't strip To headers, nor juggle CC and 
> To headers after stripping.

Is see. But wouldn't it be better, that the stripping is controlled by an 
list wide option or (if individual mails are generated anyway, for VERP 
etc.) by the receiving user, and not by the owner of the address? I would 
separate the address stripping completely from the no-dups option.

> It may not be a bad idea to go all the way with this as Sven suggests, 
> at least when not munging.  I do think it will address a common 
> complaint about no-munge, and one that's harder to write off as "fix 
> your MUA".

Just make it an "addressee clean-up" option, then the list admin or the 
receiving user can choose, if he/she wants it or not.

> I'm not inclined to spend much brain power or LoC trying to "fix" 
> reply-to-munging.  I think that's a fundamentally broken use case.  Good 
> MUAs do the right thing here and if Sven's idea addresses the other 
> major complaint then I'd be happy.  If I could drop reply-to munging in 
> the next version altogether, I'd be ecstatic.

Well, as I'm using this "broken use case" on almost every list, and me and 
my users are happy with this (and that's all that counts for me), I clearly 
vote against dropping it. ;-) I most probably would still use it, even if 
the  proposed addressee clean-up would exist. But at the moment the Mailman 
reply-to-munging is not fundamentally but specifically broken. ;-)

I will explain my refined proposal in a separate mail.



More information about the Mailman-Developers mailing list