Re: Replies to the list

[Jan Kohnert]

[Fullquote intended.]

Am Mittwoch 01 September 2010, 06:20:06 schrieben Sie:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:19:56 +0200, Jan Kohnert
> 
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > David Rogers schrieb:
> >> * Jan Kohnert <address@hidden> [2010-08-31 06:22]:
> >> >David Rogers schrieb:
> >> >> * Michael Welsh Duggan <address@hidden> [2010-08-30 18:04]:
> >> >> >Tim McNamara <address@hidden> writes:
> >> >> >> Is there a reason that the reply-to header is not set for the
> >> >> >> mailing list?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yes, there is a reason.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> >> >> >http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.txt
> >> >> 
> >> >> The logic at those links is impeccable but irrelevant.
> >> >
> >> >That are mail standards since 20+ years, if a MUA doesn't get it right,
> >> >it's not the fault of the list. ;)
> >> 
> >> True and still irrelevant.
> > 
> > OK, I don't like Flamewars, so I'll stop here. But one thing I have to
> > add: You are using Mutt, according to your headers. Mutt in fact knows
> > list-reply,
> > at least according to [1]. So why not using this? That would solve all
> > your problems. :)
> 
> List reply is a poor idea, because it assumes that the
> sender is subscribed to the list. The assumption is only valid for
> lists that are configured not to allow posting by non-members.

Well, no. A list configured to only allow list member to post, could have the 
reply-to set to the lists adress. That would only be a problem, if one member 
intends to have a private answer to another member, when this person needs to 
adjust the address. For all lists allowing everyone to post, list-reply is a 
real advantage (as I stated earlier). reply-to-list lets the discussion be 
available for all members, reply-to-all includes members and the OP, and reply 
only includes the OP. That's just how it's supposed to work.

> Reply-all does the right thing in all situations (including
> lists that only allow posting by members), so list reply
> function isn't needed. Reply-all is what solves all problems,
> real or imagined. In the context of a list discussion,
> the "all" means "all discussion parties, consisting of the
> union of the author and the set of members of the mailing
> list". That is the correct set of destinations for
> the group discussion.

Again, getting to your example: if a list allows non-members to post, reply-to 
set on the lists address would exclude the OP, which is non-member. You whould 
manually have to add his address in Cc. That's a true disadvantage.
 
> Anything less inclusive than that risks being broken
> in some situation.
> 
> If you train yourself to use the mechanism which doesn't
> work 100% of the time, you will eventually screw up.
> 
> Maybe all the lists you are on today are restricted
> to members-only posting, but that could change
> tomorrow. And then you will have to re-train your fingers
> to hit Reply-all.
> 
> Reply-all also ensures that the author gets a reply which
> isn't delayed by list processing. This is useful when
> someone needs some urgent assistance. In those cases, that
> someone is often not subscribed to the list.
> If I need help with something, and that something
> has a mailing list that allows non-member postings,
> I won't waste time subscribing just to get my question
> answered!

You got the original question wrong: The Thread started asked about reply-to 
set to the list, which does exactly to opposite of what you are describing in 
this paragraph.

> What if the list is moderated? A list-only reply could
> sit in the moderation queue for days without being
> read by the original author. Are you going to
> let some list admin decide what you can and cannot
> write to the author of the original message?

Who is talking about list-only reply??? I'm not.

lilypond-user sets different mail headers, one of it is called "List-Post". 
And *you* are free to choose:
- using reply answers to the OP (or the reply-to he set in his MUA, which 
would be overwritten by a forced reply-to from the list)
- using reply-all answers to the OP *and* the list
- using reply-list answers to the list (so if the OP isn't subscribed, he 
won't get the answer)

I don't see *any* problem with that situation, you only have to choose. :)

[I probably need to add: OP  *in this and my previous mails in this thread* 
means the original poster of *a* thread on any mailing list, or *a* poster of 
an answer within *a* thread someone answers, *not* the original poster of 
*this* tread, which I called thread-starter to avoid confusions.)

-- 
MfG Jan

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.