On 2006-10-10, 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:

http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Agreed. There is a semi-standard header "List-Reply-To:" that some MUAs will use... -- Aaron Denney -><-

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:

http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

* 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

Mikael Johansson writes:

* 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.

Well - when I specifically ask to reply to author only, it is because the message isn't appropriate for the list. If I'm lucky, it's only off topic, if I'm unlucky it contains confidential and/or embarrassing information. Either way, all subscribers get a copy each of irrelevant material. If I inadvertently mail somebody in private when intending to post to the list, I will have to repost, but apart from one person receiving one extra copy, no harm is done. I feel very strongly that the latter case is more desirable. -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Udo Stenzel wrote:

Mikael Johansson wrote:

...

* It removes important information, which can make it impossible to get back to the message sender.

This is the most important bit, actually. Anyone who wants to post a single question to haskell or haskell-cafe has to be subscribed, or the reply may go to the list, no matter what he put into the reply-to header. Is it a good thing to shut out casual users?

Point. However, is there any sort of indication whether a poster is actually subscribed to the list? I would use reply-to-list as a default unless explicitly stated in an email that list-replies will go unread; and I tend to try to monitor lists after posing question on them at least long enough to detect any reasonably quick answers to my questions.

...

I view pine as something that should be classified as reasonable

Pein (sic!) is not reasonable. If you love it so much, please whip out the source code, implement a "reply-to-list" function and get at least one mailer removed from a silly debate.

This point has been made abundantly lately.

...

I disagree. I don't agree. I don't agree. I don't agree. I don't agree.

Very convincing. Keep up the good work.

Quite a few of the arguments made on the originally refered webpage were of a highly emotional kind. Arguing such points boils down to whether the emotions expressed are shared or not.

Udo.

-- 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

Robert Dockins wrote:

FWIW, I'm using Apple's Mail.app, and it doesn't have a "reply-to- list". In fact, I don't know of a mail client off the top of my head that does

Mutt does. But that's to be expected, considering that it was written because the author was fed up with the poor handling of mailing lists.

However, I don't recall problems with multiple copies of emails.

I did get your mail twice, which I don't consider a huge problem.

I think (pure speculation) the haskell.org mail server is set up to omit people from mail it sends if they appear in the To: or Cc: of the original mail.

Actually it's Mailman that can be set up this way. I don't think, it is done on haskell.org, though. Should an admin read this, you might consider switching that option on (and leaving reply-to-munging off). Udo. -- Two rules get you through life: If it's stuck and it's not supposed to be, WD-40 it. If it's not stuck and it's supposed to be, duct tape it. -- The Duct Tape Guys' book "WD-40"

Robert Dockins wrote:

I think (pure speculation) the haskell.org mail server is set up to omit people from mail it sends if they appear in the To: or Cc: of the original mail.

Yes, this is a feature of recent Mailmans.

Finally, I agree that reply-to munging is a bad idea, but I don't think appealing to a definition of 'reasonable mailer' that doesn't match a large portion of mail clients currently in the wild is a good way to argue the point.

Gnus might have been the first one to have it, but mutt (very popular in hackerdom) was perhaps the one that popularized it. I am currently using Mozilla Thunderbird, for which it is available as an extension (unfortunately, it also requires a patch for Thunderbird; but Debian sid has already applied it). Still, when choosing between a poor hack (Reply-To munging) and the right answer (fixing mailers to support reply-to-list), I know which I prefer. The former may be appropriate in mailing lists where the audience consists solely of non-geeks (who might not be able to choose a good mailer), but in technical lists, I see no need for it. If you prefer a mail client that does not support the feature, bug your vendor to add it.

On 11/10/06, Mikael Johansson wrote:

* 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.

When you press R to reply, you should be asked whether you would like to reply to all recipients or not. Choose yes, and the message should be sent to the list. At least, that's how I remember pine working, though it's been about a year now since I used it.