[Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working
gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net
Wed Jan 24 19:48:58 EST 2018
On 01/24/2018 10:40 AM, Jordan Brown wrote:
> On 1/24/2018 12:50 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> I think there's an obvious algorithm for "smart single reply":
>> 1. If there is a Reply-To, address the message to Reply-To.
>> 2. Else if there is a List-Post, address the message to List-Post.
>> 3. Else address the message to From. (If there's no From, the
>> message violates the most basic RFCs so all bets are off.)
>> Assuming that no lists munge Reply-To, I think you'll agree that this
>> is what you want 90% of the time (conservative estimate). There are
>> some issues with this algorithm in practice:
> If a message had only List-Post and From, that wouldn't get the result
> that I would want. I would want Reply to go to the author. As a list
> member, I consider it an absolute requirement that Reply go to the
> author and only to the author; I boycott any list that directs Reply to
> the list. (I've dropped off the "staff" list for an event I was
> participating in for this reason.)
I think that the difference of Reply vs Reply-List applies to your
You are entitled to your opinion of how a mailing list should operate
and free to configure any mailing lists you manage accordingly.
I prefer that discussion mailing lists direct replies to the mailing
list so that other subscribers are aware of and can participate in the
> I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the author,
> the list, and any other To or CC destinations. I simply can't
> understand any other answer. I don't understand why anybody feels a
> need for "Reply List".
Lack of understanding does not mean that other ways are invalid.
See my comment above for why I want replies to my message to
/discussion/ lists to go to the list.
In fact, I really dislike receiving the CC when messages are going to
the list that I'm subscribed to.
> How that translates into headers that the mailing list software
> generates, shrug. Yes, the mailing list software could always force in
> a Reply-To: <author> to get the semantics that I want, but why should it
> add that noise? Or the mailing list software could omit List-Post,
> which I suppose would be fine too (since I don't understand why you
> would want it).
I thought the List-Post: header was more informational about how to post
messages to the mailing list. - I thought MUAs started offering an
option to use the List-Post header to purposefully send replies to the
list instead of the author (From:|Reply-To:).
> Before DMARC munging, I could have (mis)configured my MUA to ignore
> Reply-To and mostly gotten the right semantics even on an evil
> Reply-To:<list> list. With DMARC munging that's no longer an option; I
> need Reply-To: <author> on DMARC-munged lists.
How can you tell the difference between me setting the Reply-To: to be
the Mailman Users mailing list (which I have done for this email) and
the mailing list manager doing it? What do you do in these cases? Not
sending the reply to the list is contrary to my desires (evident by me
setting the Reply-To:) or the mailing list owners desires if they choose
to munge the reply. And yes, the mailing list is going to munge the
From for DMARC reasons.
Grant. . . .
unix || die
More information about the Mailman-Users