Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:06:01PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 03:03:10PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> > > * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header,
>
> > does someone know why?
>
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>From that page:
Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer. People
want to munge Reply-To headers to make "reply back to the list" easy. But it
already is easy. Reasonable mail programs have two separate "reply" commands:
one that replies directly to the author of a message, and another that replies
to the author plus all of the list recipients. Even the lowly Berkeley Mail
command has had this for about a decade.
Any reasonable, modern mailer provides this feature. I prefer the Elm mailer. It
has separate "r)eply" and "g)roup-reply" commands. If I want to reply to the
author of a message, I strike the "r" key. If I want to send a reply to the
entire list, I hit "g" instead. Piece 'o cake.
If you include the Reply-To header, then responses go back to the list with no
duplicated carbon copies. This page is recommending that this isn't necessary
because all good mail clients have a group reply option. But Debian forbids the
group reply function because this ends up adding unnecessary carbon copies.
So it seems you cannot have your cake and eat it!
Either you avoid Reply-To because it is "harmful" and accept that you will get
carbon copies from the commonly implemented group reply function of modern mail
clients, or you include the "harmful" Reply-To header and avoid it.
What am I missing? This seems too obviously flawed an argument.
Best,
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Reply to: