You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@commons.apache.org by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org> on 2002/10/21 00:49:51 UTC
Reply-To munging considered harmful
--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
RE: Reply-To munging considered helpful
Posted by 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
Reply-To munging considered helpful
Posted by 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 harmful
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>>>Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>>
>>>>(nonbinding) +1 from me on putting the replyto to go to the
>>>>list... .
In the newly born communities I have seen, last the cocoondev community
at outerthought, if the reply-to header doesn't contain the list but the
original sender, it's quite common for discussions to become private all
of a sudden without the writers even being aware of it.
If I talk in front of a group, as the community is, I find it very
frustrating to have to "declare" it every time I have something to say.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reply-To munging considered harmful
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Justin Erenkrantz 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).
no dialectic, please, just votes. i take it you're -1, justin.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Renaming lists, WAS: RE: Reply-To munging considered harmful
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:acoliver@apache.org]
> Sent: 21 October 2002 14:52
> I TOTALLY think the list should be renamed to something that doesn't
the list? Or do you mean the project? I'm assuming the latter.
> collide with jakarta-commons. I just forgot what list I'd stated it
> emphatically on ;-)
>
> so +1 for renaming it anything else that doesn't collide. an easy way
> to see if it collides is to do a find in cvsroot.
Ahum, jakarta-commons in cvs, doesn't collide with commons.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
But please put your feedback in the thread that talks about this, not
this silly Reply-To: thread.
Thanks,
Sander
Re: Reply-To munging considered harmful
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
I TOTALLY think the list should be renamed to something that doesn't
collide with jakarta-commons. I just forgot what list I'd stated it
emphatically on ;-)
so +1 for renaming it anything else that doesn't collide. an easy way
to see if it collides is to do a find in cvsroot. (someone said it was
hard I disagree) with *name*. heck just use "locate" if its set up ;-)
On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 00:53, Michael A. Smith wrote:
> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> > Having a debate on this is STUPID. There are no merits less two:
>
> I understand the issues of reply-to munging vs. not munging the
> reply-tos, which is why I didn't bother replying to Justin's post -- I
> didn't want to start a debate. I just wanted my voice heard.
>
> But, again, the point of my original email (which seemed to spur the
> creation of this thread) was not to start a debate about it. My main
> point was to suggest another alternative name for "commons" ("share" or
> "shared") and to ask whether there was a list that was receiving the
> commit messages for the commons repository.
>
> I find it kind of amusing that my id got added in the STATUS file to
> those in favor of reply-to munging, yet my alternative suggestion for a
> name that doesn't conflict with jakarta-commons was ignored and not
> added to the file.
>
> Must have something to do with starting my email with a touchy topid.
> Very few probably read past the first paragraph. C'est la vie.
>
> regards,
> michael
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@commons.apache.org
>
--
http://www.superlinksoftware.com - software solutions for business
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi - Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound Document in
Java
http://krysalis.sourceforge.net/centipede - the best build/project
structure
a guy/gal could have! - Make Ant simple on complex Projects!
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh
Re: Reply-To munging considered harmful
Posted by "Michael A. Smith" <mi...@iammichael.org>.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> "Michael A. Smith" wrote:
> >
> > Third paragraph? Mailing list for cvs commit messages? I miss that
> > somewhere too? :)
>
> cvs@commons.apache.org. will be better documented when we have something
> on the site.. thanks for pointing up the deficiency!
hmm... probably should have guessed, but all the projects I'm on or
have lurked on have the cvs messages go to the dev list, rather than
have a separate list for them, although I remember a few debates whether
that was the right policy to follow. That's another debate I'd rather
not see started here, so I'm not even going to bother to give my
opinion. :)
Thanks for the info on the list. I'm now subscribed. :)
regards,
michael
Re: Reply-To munging considered harmful
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
"Michael A. Smith" wrote:
>
> Third paragraph? Mailing list for cvs commit messages? I miss that
> somewhere too? :)
cvs@commons.apache.org. will be better documented when we have something
on the site.. thanks for pointing up the deficiency!
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Reply-To munging considered harmful
Posted by "Michael A. Smith" <ma...@apache.org>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> "Michael A. Smith" wrote:
>
>>I find it kind of amusing that my id got added in the STATUS file to
>>those in favor of reply-to munging, yet my alternative suggestion for a
>>name that doesn't conflict with jakarta-commons was ignored and not
>>added to the file.
>
>
> uh? from the commit log:
>
>
>> Pending issues:
>> o Enabling Reply-to on the @commons lists:
>> - +1: aaron, coar, donaldp, geirm, acoliver
>> + +1: aaron, coar, donaldp, geirm, acoliver, mas
>> -1: fitz, gstein, jerenkrantz, striker, jim
>>
>> o The name 'Commons' has caused some heartburn with the
>> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@
>> - suite (sweet?)
>> - belt (as in bat-belt or tool-belt)
>> - mcgiver
>> + - share or shared
>> - ?
>
>
> did you maybe not read past the first paragraph? <grin />
oops... my bad... :)
Third paragraph? Mailing list for cvs commit messages? I miss that
somewhere too? :)
regards,
michael
Re: Reply-To munging considered harmful
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
"Michael A. Smith" wrote:
>
> I find it kind of amusing that my id got added in the STATUS file to
> those in favor of reply-to munging, yet my alternative suggestion for a
> name that doesn't conflict with jakarta-commons was ignored and not
> added to the file.
uh? from the commit log:
> Pending issues:
> o Enabling Reply-to on the @commons lists:
> - +1: aaron, coar, donaldp, geirm, acoliver
> + +1: aaron, coar, donaldp, geirm, acoliver, mas
> -1: fitz, gstein, jerenkrantz, striker, jim
>
> o The name 'Commons' has caused some heartburn with the
> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@
> - suite (sweet?)
> - belt (as in bat-belt or tool-belt)
> - mcgiver
> + - share or shared
> - ?
did you maybe not read past the first paragraph? <grin />
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Reply-To munging considered harmful
Posted by "Michael A. Smith" <ma...@apache.org>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Having a debate on this is STUPID. There are no merits less two:
I understand the issues of reply-to munging vs. not munging the
reply-tos, which is why I didn't bother replying to Justin's post -- I
didn't want to start a debate. I just wanted my voice heard.
But, again, the point of my original email (which seemed to spur the
creation of this thread) was not to start a debate about it. My main
point was to suggest another alternative name for "commons" ("share" or
"shared") and to ask whether there was a list that was receiving the
commit messages for the commons repository.
I find it kind of amusing that my id got added in the STATUS file to
those in favor of reply-to munging, yet my alternative suggestion for a
name that doesn't conflict with jakarta-commons was ignored and not
added to the file.
Must have something to do with starting my email with a touchy topid.
Very few probably read past the first paragraph. C'est la vie.
regards,
michael
Re: Reply-To munging considered harmful
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Screw the merits.. Its a big pain in the a** to me. Everything else is
crap. ;-)
I have to right click and select "reply to list" which requires me to
realize that this is the ONLY apache list I'm on that has made such a
lame derivation from the rest.. .
Not only that but its wonderful how everyone replies to all and I get 30
freaking copies by the end of the day. And even lovelier how a
wonderful list of email addresses is compiled for spammer convenience.
Sure they can get it anyhow, but you don't have to serve it up with a
glass of Rotlan Torra for them!
Having a debate on this is STUPID. There are no merits less two:
1. What do most of the other lists use?
2. What is one's personal preference? (majority rules)
-Andy
On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 18:49, 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
>
--
http://www.superlinksoftware.com - software solutions for business
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi - Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound Document in
Java
http://krysalis.sourceforge.net/centipede - the best build/project
structure
a guy/gal could have! - Make Ant simple on complex Projects!
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh
Re: Reply-To munging considered harmful
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> 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.'
Mail clients have followup?
> 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
Mine is that it destroys the conversation. Lists are predominantly slow
things, they lag heavily. I send something to someone and Cc a list. That
person replies to me and Cc's the list. I reply. We can get deep into the
discussion [read rampant argument] before the rest of the list catch up.
The list turns into a 2-person conversation with lots of eavesdroppers.
Hen