[Mailman-Users] Muti-Mailman install

[Charles Marcus]

You replied on list, so I will too... but I will not respond to further 
arguments about it, since neither of us are likely to change our mind.

On 6/19/2008, Brad Knowles (brad at python.org) wrote:
>> Whats the big deal anyway? If you want lists configured to reply to
>> the list, just set it that way. What difference does it make what the
 >> default is?

> The point is that there are lots of MUAs out there that are broken,

I didn't intend to open up this debate, because I *have* read - and 
*understand* the arguments on both sides. *Ideally*, I agree with you 
and the Mailman devs... *realistically*, though, most discussion lists - 
for most people, using the most popular mail clients - operate much more 
smoothly when Reply-to munging is implemented.

*My* point was simply pointing out that there *is a preference setting* 
in the Mailman GUI for changing this, so if someone *wants* to change 
it, they obviously *can* - so what difference does the *default* make?

 > and if you screw with the Reply-To: header, they are completely and
 > totally unable to change who the reply is sent to.

Sorry, but this isn't true for any mail client I've ever used... ever 
heard of copy/cut/paste? Yeah, it requires some manual labor, rather 
than clicking a button, but it can still be done.

In fact, I must do this a little of this when participating *on this 
list*. First, I have to hit 'Reply All' to get the list address in the 
CC field, then I change the 'CC' to 'To', then *delete* the *posters* 
email address so that they don't get a duplicate - which, by the way, I 
notice you don't have the courtesy to do.

I wouldn't have to do any of that, if the Reply-to was set to the list.

But without being specific - like, what specific MUA's have this problem 
- its kind of hard to argue.

> This is how private information gets exposed on public lists, with
> consequences ranging from just being personally embarassing, to
> getting you fired,

If someone is dumb enough to send information of such a nature without 
actually *looking* at where it is going, then yeah, they might actually 
be required to pay the consequences...

> to actually being life-threatening in some cases.
> 
> Do you really want to be responsible for something that could get
 > someone killed?

Lol! Thanks, I needed that...

>> Until the vast majority of the most popular mail clients have a
 >> proper 'Reply-To-List' function (TBird doesn't, although it has an
 >> extension that tries to do it, it isn't very good at it) discussion
 >> lists should definitely (imnsho) be configured to reply to list, and
 >> I always change the ones I manage to do so.

> Then you must not have read the FAQ I referenced.

I did... I just believe that it is *ideally* correct, but 
*realistically* incorrect, due to the reality of limitations in both the 
most popular mail clients *and* the *behavior* of most people on 
discussion lists (they don't know the difference, and more importantly 
*don't care*).

-- 

Best regards,

Charles