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

[Robert Anderson]

On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 00:52, Miles Bader wrote:
> Robert Anderson <address@hidden> writes:
> > Sorry but I must be missing something about your argument here.
> 
> Yes
> 
> > Yes, it doesn't "do the right thing" if I want to reply to you.  So
> > what?  It doesn't "do the right thing" _ever_ with your scheme if what
> > I want is to reply to the list only.
> 
> Huh?  It's completely trivial for it to do the right thing if you want
> to reply the list.  Your main argument seems to be that you have to hit
> _a different key_, and that makes you sad.

What?  No.  I've never said that anywhere.  Show me one place I ever
said that.  It's not true.

I'll repeat for the Nth time: there is _no way_ in my mailer under the
current setup to reply to the _list only_.

> But if header-munging is used, and you want to reply to me, you _can't_
> because the information is not in the headers anymore.
> 
> Which is more broken?

I think it is clearly more broken as-is, for the simple reason that
replying to the list only is the vastly more common case.

> 
> > Now, you're going to say "well that's a broken MUA problem" with respect
> > to the duplicate replies.  Maybe, but I'm using the default MUA on RH9
> > (evolution).  That doesn't seem like an outlier to me.  I can't think of
> > what would be more mainstream, in fact.
> 
> I make no claim that mainstream mailers are good, or usable, or correct.
> Probably some of them are, and some of them aren't, and we should fix
> the ones that aren't, or send bug reports, or switch, or whatever.
> 
> Saying `it's OK to screw some people because I'm lazy' is pretty rude,

The fact of the matter is that someone gets screwed no matter which way
it is set up.  That's simple reality.   There is nothing rude about it.

> but your argument basically seems to be `well the _majority_ is lazy,
> and that makes it OK to screw some people.'  Since I'm a part of the
> minority, how do you expect me to react to that?

It seems pretty simple to me that the rude response is "Someone is gonna
get screwed but it isn't me.  I don't care that I'm in the minority!"

All I'm saying is "it seems reasonable to screw the fewest
people-replies."

> > I don't understand what it "breaks" about the headers.  From your above
> > discussion it sounds like if it does not munge existing reply-to's
> 
> It depends on the mailing-list software; the old arch-users mailing
> list, for instance _did_ munge existing Reply-To headers.
> 
> But if you'll read what I wrote above again, it doesn't really matter.
> When the majority of Reply-To headers are munged, but a few aren't, then
> you put the onus on the reader to notice that situation and get it right

Gah!  You're bringing a bias to this discussion that your way is right,
and munging is wrong, and therefore the only "noticing" that has to be
done is when the headers are munged.  But that's silly, I think, because
most lists are munged.  I only have to "notice" on lists that aren't. 
The argument is completely valid in either direction - it's just a
matter of what you're used to.

> -- and if they have trouble even dealing with the concept of `use a
> different reply key for this list,'

This has nothing to do with using a different key.

> I don't know the RFCs well enough to quote them, but following them has
> the distinct advantage that people actually _thought_ about the
> ramifications of the rules when they wrote them.

If the author of "considered harmful" is any indication - not very
clearly.

  Reply-To header
> munging, on the other hand, is the result of a few yahoos tossing in a
> hack that seemed right at the time -- but which proved to be an
> inconsistent and half-assed solution.

If that's so, it has yet to be demonstrated by anyone here or any
"considered harmful" essay.

Bob