Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:45:51 -0800 From: Marc MERLIN To: simon@metasystema.org Subject: http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml Message-ID: <20001114224551.B19915@marc.merlins.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i X-Sysadmin: BOFH X-URL: http://marc.merlins.org/ X-Operating-System: Proudly running Linux 2.2.12/Debian potato Status: RO Content-Length: 4270 Lines: 102 Your URL was mentionned in a thread on the mailman list. I'm giving you a courtesy copy of what I answered. I'm not looking at arguing with you though since we have clearly different views about this. ----- Forwarded message from Marc MERLIN ----- (...) On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 12:27:14PM +0800, Gregory Leblanc wrote: > Fine, that's all well and good, munging reply to is harmful. Sometimes > the harm that it causes is less than the harm that it prevents. I've yet to have a single person show me what harm not munging reply-to creates... It's all about users that have been trained to do the wrong thing and some of them who then believe it's the only way to go. > This is a good policy in most cases, but there ARE some where it doesn't > make sense. Yep, the only one I know is onelist which tries to force as many traffic back to the list in order to spam you with more messages which each contain a small add they make money on. Ok, more seriously, the only downside of group replies is that for MUAs that don't support list-reply, like mutt does, the sender gets two copies of the answer (which are easy to get rid off by removing duplicate messages that contain the same message id) (...) On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 11:42:53PM -0500, Tanner Lovelace wrote: (...) > http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml Ok, I'll bite. - "Reply-To gives the respondant an option which would not otherwise exist: namely the ability to reply only to the list." false, see list-reply function in good MUAs (mutt is one) - "If you use a reasonable mailer, Reply-To munging does provide new functionality, namely the ability to reply only to the list" No comment... (the author completely ignores list-reply, and says that MUAs should all be patched to allow overriding reply-tos so that they can continue to be misused) - "Reply-To munging adds additional functionality, it actually increases freedom of choice" *cough* bullshit *cough* For one, it prevents a thread across two lists and the redirection to one list or a third list. - some mailers apparently do not have a separate reply to all function Ok, 1) I have yet to see one 2) in the point above, the author was saying that any MUA that can't override a reply-to is not a reasonable mailer and shouldn't be used. The irony... - "For discussion type lists, I would estimate that ninety percent of the time, people want to reply to the list" Yeah, so? That's why you have several reply functions, where one does not require more work than the other (the author mentions having to type addresses by hand, I'm not sure why) - "Some administrators claim that munging Reply-To headers is harmful because it surprises people, and can cause damage when things go awry" Damn straight. If you reply to the list by mistake due to reply-to munging, you look like an idiot, or worse. If you reply to the sender only by mistake, no harm is done, the mistake can be fixed. - "It's What People Want" Yeah, there are misguided people out there, and they are often vocal. Users typically know nothing about mail standards or what header sender vs envelope sender means. I don't think their opinion is that relevant :-) Ok, more seriously, users do matter but if they're trained the wrong way when they start, some get very resistant to change, regardless of whether it's a good thing or not. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Microsoft is to operating systems & security .... .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | Finger marc_f@merlins.org for PGP key