On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Misha Aizatulin wrote:
Matthias Fischmann wrote:
Some lists have the Reply-To: set to the list address. I think you can even configure the From: to be haskell-cafe instead of the poster, making the poster merely identifiable by the Sender: field.
Do you have strong opinions on this subject?
Here is an argument against Reply-To munging. I'd say I agree with it:
* It violates the principle of minimal munging. This is a valid point. It may, though, possibly be a small price to pay nowadays. * It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer. I disagree. I find it annoying to no end to either 1) get multiple copies of mails concerning discussions I participate in or 2) have to manually re-edit the header each and every time I want to keep a discussion on a mailing list, possibly with added trouble finding the right adress to send to For mailing lists which have the characteristics that most replies are meant for the list, munging is a much more comfortable way to deal with things than non-munging. * It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will direct a response. Not much. And it reduces the amount of surprise. We have by now left the time when most lists where built as huge To/CC-lists (or at least most people have left those times), and the Reply-to-all simply is not the expected behaviour to reply to a list with one single adress. * It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer. I don't agree. * It removes important information, which can make it impossible to get back to the message sender. This is again a valid point. * It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to coddle those running brain-dead software. I don't agree. I view pine as something that should be classified as reasonable, and I feel penalized by non-munging. * It violates the principle of least work because complicates the procedure for replying to messages. I don't agree. * It violates the principle of least surprise because it changes the way a mailer works. I don't agree. * It violates the principle of least damage, and it encourages a failure mode that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse. I'd be surprised if private mail leakage happens that much to Haskell-cafe, or for that matter if it'd be embarrassing to the point the author is talking about. * Your subscribers don't want you to do it. Or, at least the ones who have bothered to read the docs for their mailer don't want you to do it. I'm a subscriber. I'd prefer munging.
Cheers, Misha
Best, -- Mikael Johansson | To see the world in a grain of sand mikael@johanssons.org | And heaven in a wild flower http://www.mikael.johanssons.org | To hold infinity in the palm of your hand | And eternity for an hour