[pmwiki-users] Mailling list Reply-To:

[Oliver Betz]

Patrick R. Michaud wrote:

[...]

> > I wouldn't like [Reply-To munging]. When I post something to the 
> > list, and people reply to this post, then I'd like to have a 
> > copy of this answer outside of my pmwiki-folder. 
> 
> I have to agree with Nils on this one -- I particularly like
> that responses to messages I've written come more quickly and directly 
> to my inbox via the 'Cc:' line.  There are times when the mailing

As I wrote: this argument is "pro Reply-To: modification" (to both 
the sender and the list) because several people usually reply _only_ 
to the list address. "Reply to all" is bad, IMO.

BTW: if the direct mail arrives first, and you reply to it, you don't 
have the headers (e.g. List-Post) from your list manager.

[...]

> to the list"), what mail clients should be doing is to set 
> the common/generic "reply" function to give priority to any 
> address given in the List-Post header if it exists.

Maybe we get some more mail clients where the user can select this in 
the future.

[...]

> P.S.:  Some classic articles in this area are:
>     Rosenthal, C., "Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful" [4]

yes, "classic" (cited many times), but rather flawed. BTW: Chip 
didn't reply to my comments.

>     Hill, S., "Reply-To Munging Considered Useful" [5]

not much better. Both write about broken mail clients, but that's not 
the point.

>     Pickette, N., "Reply-To Munging Still Considered Harmful. Really." [6]

Not bad, but let me cite: "I can’t tell you how many Reply-To munging 
lists I’ve been on where someone (or multiple people) send private 
messages to the list by accident".

Im subscribed to several mailing lists, two let Reply-To: unchanged, 
9 set it to the list, 2 set it to both (list and sender), one sets it 
to a fake address (!). I didn't ever read any offending mail sent to 
a list by accident.

IMO only two arguments count in practice and today:
- risk of sending offending mail by accident
- loss of information for the community

So the decision depends on the topic and level of the list (risk of 
sending offending/private mail), the preferences and care of the 
participants.

For me, both versions are acceptable. Usually I recognize if the mail 
is not sent back and I send it again (like Caveman/The Editor). I 
could even set a filter modifying the Reply-To:.

Since there is at least one member afraid of sending private 
information to the list, I agree to let the Reply-To: untouched.

Oliver

P.S.: sorry for the typo in the subject making a search for this 
thread in the archives more difficult.
-- 
Oliver Betz, Muenchen