Reply-To munging considered helpful

[Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>]

And then theres ...

http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:49, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Sunday, October 20, 2002 5:25 PM -0400 "Michael A. Smith"
>
> <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> >> (nonbinding) +1 from me on putting the replyto to go to the
> >> list... .
> >
> > Same from me.  I think having the reply-to go to the list helps
> > ensure discussions remain on the list, which I feel that helps the
> > community as a whole.
>
> My experience says exactly the opposite.  Having a reply-to go to the
> list makes it hard to join communities or include people (by default).
>
> This is especially on lists where people can post without being
> subscribed or on lists that have cross-posts.  In fact, I might
> expect cross-posting to happen on the commons list more so than other
> lists (due to reuse across projects).  Adding a reply-to makes
> cross-posting infeasible - not having it forces people to use
> followups (aka reply-to-all on some MUAs) not reply (aka
> reply-to-sender), which is correct.
>
> For a good distinction between 'reply' vs. 'followup' and the harmful
> effects of Reply-To munging, please read:
>
> http://cr.yp.to/immhf/response.html
> http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> For lists, you want a followup not a reply.  A reply should only be
> sent to the original sender (i.e. default to private).  A followup
> should be sent to everyone involved - hence 'reply to all' as the
> common alias for 'followup.'
>
> As djb points out in the second link, if you don't want to get
> duplicate email, you should set Mail-Followup-To header in any email
> sent to the list address.  This is an opt-in solution on your part,
> rather than a harmful dictated solution that has horrible failure
> conditions.
>
> I've yet to see a rational argument for munging Reply-To other than
> 'it decreases my email traffic.'  As I pointed out above, there are
> commonly accepted ways to solve that, but there is no way to solve
> the problem of dropped followups.  -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@commons.apache.org

-- 
Cheers,

Peter Donald
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power."          |
|       -Abraham Lincoln                               |
*------------------------------------------------------*

RE: Reply-To munging considered helpful

[Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>]

> From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org]
> Sent: 21 October 2002 01:16

> And then theres ...
> 
> http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml

Quote from there:

"It Doesn't Break Reasonable Mailers

If you use a reasonable mailer, Reply-To munging does provide new functionality,
namely the ability to reply only to the list. Furthermore, it does not decrease
functionality. In Pine, for example, when there is a Reply-To header, Pine will
ask, ``Use "Reply-To:" address instead of "From:" address?'', easily allowing one
to reply only to the original author. In KMail, it is even easier. One merely
right-clicks on the hyperlinked From address. 

If your mailer doesn't have this option, you should request it from its development
team. Any mailer, whose development team refuses this simple request due to some
ideological position, cannot be said to be reasonable."

Well, news flash, most of the mailers on the windows platform aren't considered 'reasonable'.
Reply-To munging _does_ decrease functionality in both Outlook and Outlook Express.
The essay talks about procmail being a Unix centric approach; ignoring the most common
MS MUAs is most definitatle doing the same.  Ask the development team? Ha!


Sander