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

[Miles Bader]

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.

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?

> 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,
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?

> 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
-- and if they have trouble even dealing with the concept of `use a
different reply key for this list,' how well do you think they're going
to deal with having to make a decision on a per-message basis by
looking at a header that they probably don't even know exists?

> BTW, it's Lynyrd Skynyrd.

Great.  At least I've learned something from this dicussion.

> Look, the reply-to munging seems to follow a very simple idea behind a
> mailing list that makes a lot of sense.

And it screws people.  That's what I don't like.

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.  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.

-Miles
-- 
I'm beginning to think that life is just one long Yoko Ono album; no rhyme
or reason, just a lot of incoherent shrieks and then it's over.  --Ian Wolff