[Mailman-Developers] Advanced Reply-To-Munging
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Fri Mar 16 01:17:09 CET 2007
Sven Anderson writes:
> All my proposal is about, is bringing the reply-to-munging closer to the
> RFC _and_ usability than it is now.
Well, there is a difference of opinion about this, but my opinion is
that Reply-To munging is absolutely broken vis-a-vis the RFC: it's an
originator header, and unless the mailing list can claim to be the
author (eg, announce list or digest), the mailing list should never
Whether you can get an effective reply-to-all is a separate question.
> Reply-to-munging _is_ heavily used in existing Mailman
> installations. Why not fix it then?
Even the reply-to -> cc proposal isn't a fix, at least in the sense
And whether it makes things more usable, especially for the
maintainers and list admins, is an open question, until it's tried in
practice. Among other things, the behavior becomes more complicated,
varying across lists. Consider our disagreement about whether Mailman
removes subscribed addresses from the CC, the ease of confusing the
no-dupes option with not-metoo, and the frequent confusion between
Mailman's no-dupes and Gmail's behavior with respect to reflection of
own posts by mailing lists.
There's such a thing as being too smart for your own good, and I think
it's very easy to cross that line here.
More information about the Mailman-Developers