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

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:31:31AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Please see my other message and look up the DRUMS reference:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/03/msg00003.html
> For another person complaining about the brokenness of MFT, see
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/03/msg00007.html

Neither of these actually name any problems with MFT, as far as I can
see; you assert that it's "broken by design" but don't explain why.
It's perfectly normal to "control other people's mail clients"; that's
what headers *do*.  From: and Reply-To headers tells clients where to
send replies; MFT, in identical fashion, tells clients where to send
list followups.

Of course, these are always just hints; I can always override my mailer
to ignore a Reply-To or MFT header if I have reason to, but it's my
mailer's job to provide reasonable default behavior (such that I don't
have to manually edit recipients in the ordinary case), and it's your job
to hint my mailer if you want it to treat you atypically, such as if you
want CC's on followups to Debian lists.

> Haven't you ever considered a "MFT: dev-null" or worse?

Sorry, I don't understand what you're suggesting.

> > It's currently the only common way for a sender to express his preference:
> Nonsense. Ask explicitly in the body. Don't hide it in the header.

No, expecting people to manually set their replies to follow each
individual's preference is unreasonable.  If someone asks for a CC on
a list mail, I do so once (to ask them to use MFT), and ignore it from
then on.  It's their responsibility to hint my mailer how to reply, by
setting the appropriate header--not mine to implement their preferences
by hand.

> > When I reply to a mail to a list with a CC to a third party, I maintain
> > that CC (unless I specifically know that the person is on the list).
> > Those CC's are usually to people not on the list, and *should* be
> > preserved.  This wouldn't change if MFT was added automatically.
> Then all it would take is one person to goof and put someone
> in the CC who shouldn't be there and you would repeat that goof,
> according to your description above.

If you CC a person in a list followup, you're saying (in practice,
going from my experience on lists) "this person should receive CCs
on future followups".  If someone goofs and puts a name in the CC
list that shouldn't be there, he's going to get copies that he doesn't
want.  MFT doesn't change that.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: