Re: Duplicate messages on this list
On Dec 5, 1997, at 15:49, Tyson Dowd wrote:
> On 02-Dec-1997, Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> wrote:
> > No, please don't muck with reply-to. That's evil. And if I
> > hadn't lost my disk, I'd have a handy-dandy url for you. Hmmm. Try
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> Which, as we have discussed before on this list, is an incorrect
> assessment of the problem as it applies to the debian lists.
Let me agree 100% on this. I visited the URL listed above, and it
didn't convince me at all, at least not for the case under discussion
here. The URL covers with a lot of detail how to send a reply to the
original poster of a message or to the whole recipient list;
obviously, the problem here is altogether different.
> 1. We have a policy of no cc:s, but nearly everyone uses them
> because there is no Reply-To: set.
> 2. We have information that should be on the list going into
> private email instead (where it is effectively *lost* to all
> other developers).
It would seem most of the people just hit reply-to without even
looking at the headers that are generated for them (perhaps not every
mail reader will show you these headers).
> 3. We have threads jumping from debian-private to debian-devel
> because people accidently add the wrong To: or Cc: header by
> hand after replying to the individual instead of the list.
> Nothing too confidential has been disclosed yet.
> 4. We are penalizing people with low-bandwith or high-cost net
> connections by forcing them to download things multiple times.
When I first asked about Reply-To, I thought this single issue would
be more than enough reason to add a Reply-To header. I have to put up
with lots of duplicates, and I only realize they are duplicates AFTER
I have downloaded them via modem. It is very annoying, and I'm really
considering unsubscribing just because of this (not that many people
will notice this, but I thought the list maintainers would want to
know what issues their users have to put up with).
> On the plus side, in the very occasional situations where a "Reply-To:"
> is useful, we don't munge it. This is useful when you want to reply to
> someone in person, but their "From:" address doesn't work, or if
> you want to move a discussion from one mailing list to another (except
> that if people use "group reply" as advocated by that URL,
> it will probably just move it to *both* lists).
> I'd like it to be fixed, but it seems that there are a few people who
> have strong opinions on the matter, but are not prepared to discuss or
> fix the problems it causes.
For whatever it is worth, I am subscribed to other mailing lists
(namely, ACE's), which add a Reply-To header; not only have I NEVER
seen a duplicate coming from this list (unless I'm CC'ed directly by
the sender), but I have also NEVER EVER seen anybody complain about
the list munging an original Reply-To header.
> Tyson Dowd
Gonzalo Diethelm # Windows 95: n. 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for
firstname.lastname@example.org # a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally
=Debian Linux= # coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit
www.debian.org # company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .