[Mailman-Users] Re: [Mailman-Developers] Reverting question
Chuq Von Rospach
chuqui at plaidworks.com
Wed Nov 15 08:45:43 CET 2000
I'll note for the record that the above subject line is a great
example of why subject line munging is stupid.... But I digress, and
haven't even started....
>Ok, more seriously, the only downside of group replies is that for MUAs that
>don't support list-reply, like mutt does, the sender gets two copies of the
>answer (which are easy to get rid off by removing duplicate messages that
>contain the same message id)
And my research shows that only 1-2% of a typical user base cares --
and for those that do, it's fairly easily fixed on the client side,
so I consider that a major non-issue. Although do think the MLM can
be taught to be intelligent here, too. and I posted a note to
-developers suggesting a way to extend the "metoo" flag in the user
record to allow users to configure this if they care...
>Point taken. The other option is wrong too though, for the reason I
I think this entire argument explains why coercing reply-to is bogus
-- because all of us, who happen to be fairly experienced in running
lists and writing list software and (at the least) using lists --
can't even begin to agree on how it ought to be done. If there's that
much disagreement on the basic issues surrounding it, then we really
don't know how/why to use it properly, which means we shouldn't.
IMHO, of course.
But if reply-to were really useful, ti'd be obvious how to properly
use it, and basically, it's not. Which is what started this whole
thing, since the way Mailman does it is ambiguous.
> > certainly, but if headers are sending mail back to the list, the user's
> > reply-to really doesn't make much difference, unless you need to send a
> > private reply. If you're sending a private reply, you can get it out of
> > the x-reply-to header.
>Great, I need to patch my MUA some more to attempt to deal with all this
What we *really* need is to fix this for real -- which means MUAs
need to be taught to honor the List-Post header from RFC 2369, and
that header gives the MUA the option to add a "reply to list" option,
and that fixes things for real -- becase you now have reply-author,
reply-list and reply-all. The big problem boils down to us trying to
force reply-to to force what is relaly a tri-state operation into a
two-state operation, and sort of by definition, there's no right way
of doing that, because nyou can't squeeze three into two (period).
>- "If you use a reasonable mailer, Reply-To munging does provide new
> functionality, namely the ability to reply only to the list"
and "reasonable mailer" is defined as "any mailer that does things
the way the author prefers them", I guess.
>- "Reply-To munging adds additional functionality, it actually increases
> freedom of choice"
> *cough* bullshit *cough*
Yes, it gives you the freedom to do exactly what the list admin
wants, and only that.
>- "For discussion type lists, I would estimate that ninety percent of the
> time, people want to reply to the list"
> Yeah, so?
and even that -- isn't true. He ought to actually sit down and do
scientific surveys instead of estimating... I know people hate real
numbers because facts get in the way of their opinions, but....
>- "Some administrators claim that munging Reply-To headers is harmful because
> it surprises people, and can cause damage when things go awry"
> Damn straight.
So it's the stupid user's fault that we made them do something they
weren't expecting to do, and they got burnt by it...
>- "It's What People Want"
> Yeah, there are misguided people out there,
again, that's an opinion. He ought to go find some facts to prove it.
My facts disagree with him.
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui at plaidworks.com)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq at apple.com)
Be just, and fear not.
More information about the Mailman-Users