[Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update

[Miles Bader]

Robert Anderson <address@hidden> writes:
> "User expectations" aside for the moment:  I think the default action
> for this mailing list ought to be "reply to list, but not to original
> sender."  Discussion should be on-list by default.  Agree?

Discussion should be on-list, but that says nothing about whether the
original sender is included or not.  On `closed lists,' you may as well
eliminate the sender, but on `open lists' (e.g. linux-kernel; I don't
know what sort gnu-arch-users is), you should not -- if the sender _is_
on the list in that case he'll get a duplicate message, but big whoop,
those are easy to deal with (in good MUAs, you needn't ever see them at
all).

Ideally, the list manager would add a `Mail-Followup-To:' header for
messages send by a person subscribed to the list, which would consist of
all recipients, but not the sender -- that would make a `followup'
command do exactly what you want, without sending duplicate messages.

> With the current setup, if I do "reply" I get the original sender's
> email.  Not what I want.

But it is what lots of people want -- when you get down to it, there
_are_ multiple ways you can reply, and it's up to you which one you
choose by default.  You could do like me and _always_ choose `followup',
and it will basically work like you want.  Why not try it for a while?

> If I do "reply all" I get the list AND the original sender's email. 
> That's not what I want, either.
> 
> I have to do "reply all" and then go and cut out the sender's email. 
> That's frustrating and annoying.

Then don't do it.  Don't cut out the sender's email.  Things will still
work correctly.

> On top of all that, I just screwed up several times in a row this
> morning because I'm accustomed to the other behavior - which is, in
> fact, what I want.

This is because you're used to broken list behavior; really, there's no
other way around it other than just 

> So, apparently this is some kind of point-of-honor for email geeks so I
> don't expect much sympathy with my joe-everybody desire to have the
> default be easy and automatic.  But, whatever.  I like the "munging." 
> It works for me.

Maybe so, but it screws things up for other people (like me).

The bottom line is that _there is no concept_ of `default reply' that
works for mailing lists, given the standard headers.  Hijacking Reply-To
may _seem_ to work at first glance, but it reality it screws things up
(as I've explained in great detail in other posts; did you read them?).

If Reply-To munging _didn't_ break the headers, then sure, it would be
a `lets vote' issue, to decide which should be the default -- but
that's not the case, it _does_ break the headers, so it shouldn't be
done.  Period.

-Miles

p.s. This stupid `joe-everybody' give-me-sympathy-I'm-just-an-average-guy
     schtick is really grating by the way.
-- 
Would you like fries with that?