[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Duplicate messages on this list

>>"Tyson" == Tyson Dowd <trd@cs.mu.oz.au> writes:

>> IMHO overriding an existing Reply-To is a bad idea.

Tyson> I think it's bad that mailers don't handle mailing lists
Tyson> well. When that support is common, there will be little reason
Tyson> for munging Reply-To. But now, it solves some problems, and has
Tyson> little cost (apart from being less pleasing).

	If I set a reply-to address for the list manually, then having
 it munged is not just being less pleasing, it is *broken*
 behaviour. Why should we break perfectly standard mail processing
 because some mailers are broken out there? If your mailer is broken,
 protest to the author, don't ask other people to break email
 conventions to cater to broken mailers.

>>  With your solution, how do you propose to deal with the case where
>> someone has a good reason for using a Reply-To ?

Tyson> I can only see two good reasons - one, moving the topic to
Tyson> another mailing list (which won't work everyone else doesn't
Tyson> prune the CCs), or two, if your "From" doesn't match your email
Tyson> address. On announcement lists, you can use Reply-To more
Tyson> creatively to put a PR handling address, but debian-devel is
Tyson> not an announcement list.

	Yes, but there are times when discussion is taken
 off-line. You break the reply-to address, and people can no longer be
 reached off-line. Such gratitous breakage just for broken mailers? 

Tyson> So if your email system is broken so that the From: of outgoing
Tyson> mail won't be accepted as incoming mail, and so you use a
Tyson> reply-to, I suppose this would cause trouble.

	Sorry, broken email is not the only reason to have a reply-to
 address. And anybody's email setup, as long as it conforms to
 electronic mail standards and convention, is none of our business. We
 *shoul* *not* break it.

Tyson> Considering most mailing lists seem to be configured to reject
Tyson> email that isn't "From" the person on the list, I find this is
Tyson> a pretty feeble argument. But it's the strongest argument for
Tyson> not munging Reply-Tos on mailing lists. Even the mail RFC (I
Tyson> forget the number) suggests using Reply-Tos for mailing lists.

	Chapter and verse, please. This may be the most valid of your
 arguments. Quote the RFC, and you may well have a point.

Tyson> With the current situation, what are the solutions to the 4
Tyson> problems I outlined? -- and what is the likelihood of these
Tyson> solutions actually solving problems (as opposed to the "spend
Tyson> 30 seconds pruning your headers" solution, which given the
Tyson> number of CCs on this list, is clearly not workable).

	I think people should get decent mail user agents. I never
 have to spend time pruning CC's. (and when I use other mail user
 agents, I _do_ trim the headers to follow good ettiquette). I also
 think it is bad policy to break standards to cater to rude people
 (those who do not follow good net ettiquette).

 For people who like that kind of book, that is the kind of book they
 will like. --anonymous
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: