Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
- From: Miles Bader <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 08:05:59 +0900
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <E1Lxi8q-0006qZemail@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090427123915.GD2275@tumbolia.org> <email@example.com> <20090427130600.GG1760@sirena.org.uk> <20090427132214.GG2275@tumbolia.org> <49F5BEDC.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090427144130.GI2275@tumbolia.org> <email@example.com>
Ben Finney <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> You're arguing that a Reply-To header is "harmful" (not that I am
> That field is very useful. What's harmful is mailing-list software
> munging that field, which is for the author to set and for nothing else
> to fiddle with.
Yup. Reply-To is for the _original sender's_ use!
If mailing list software were to start setting Reply-To, what is it
supposed to do if it gets a message with Reply-To already set (by the
original sender)? It could (1) overwrite the original Reply-To header,
breaking personal replies to the sender, or it could (2) refrain from
setting Reply-To for such messages, completely confusing the readers who
have become accustomed to depending on the mailing-list's setting.
I think there's no perfect solution to the general problem, because
there's too wide a variety of MUAs in use, which support different
feature sets. But it's much better to get "duplicate" messages in some
cases than to break things in a way that leads to _lost_ messages.
My experience is that in practice, it's not such a huge problem anyway;
a combination of MUA list-followup commands + Mail-Followup-To: headers
+ MUA duplicate suppression seems to keep duplicates in check reasonably
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. [George Carlin]