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

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

Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
> 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.

Neither? So you still didn't bother with the reference?

The problems are cited: maybe you don't agree they are problems.

> 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.

A major argument for MFT seems to be that people should
brainlessly follow it rather than consider where they send
their replies. No mail headers should be trusted that much
and no-one should get sniffy when headers are deliberately

> 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),

The reasonable default behaviour is to send list replies to the
List-Post address, off-list replies to Reply-To||From and group
replies to all original recipients.

> 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.

It should not be my job to work around bugs in your mailer.

> > > 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. [...]

No, expecting people to use broken software that implements
non-standard mail headers is unreasonable. In any case, explicit
requests are another common way, so your "only" was false.

> [...]  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.

Thank you for agreeing that MFT does nothing to help solve one of
the most common problems on debian lists. I guess we'll just differ
on the desirability of supporting a non-standard header in the
listserver or hiding cc requests in headers.

Best wishes,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: