Re: Mailing list headers
Hamish Moffatt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I don't think adding it to a signature works. It's not the sort of thing
> that I personally would notice when doing a reply. It's more effective
> for people to just follow the debian list policy.
I think it's fairly arguable whether debian list policy requires people to
honour such a request if it appears in a place that is not normally
displayed by most clients. Adding it to the signature would only increase
the number of people doing what you want them to, so is surely worthwhile.
> I notice that you are using slrn and a mail to news gateway. Does your
> gateway convert M-F-T to news's Followup-To: ? It should.
No, it doesn't, it leaves it there as M-F-T so I can decide whether I want
to followup, Cc or reply off-list. M-F-T is a request, not a command, is
not standard and probably never will be. Any such header should probably be
part of the List-* family of headers, but that wouldn't handle the grey area
of lists such as the debian lists, where each sender can pick their own
reply policies. Ugh.
> It's true that M-F-T is not standard yet, but if we agree that it
> conveys useful information, shouldn't we encourage its use and support?
I don't think so yet. Before we start having vigilante flamings from users,
you should take M-F-T through the standards process and try to clean up the
whole From/Reply-To/Mail-Followup-To/List-Post thing. Good luck!