Re: OT: less v. more & CCing
>>>>> "Gerfried" == Gerfried Fuchs <email@example.com> writes:
Gerfried> I go another way: I included now a header that should
Gerfried> be respected by most MUAs: Mail-CopiesTo: never
The "mail-copies-to" header does sound good, but I have mixed feelings
as to if it really solves the problems.
Oh, BTW, Mail-CopiesTo: never is obsolete, use "nobody" instead. See
Mostly coming from this:
Gerfried> I think newcomers should rather be guided to _not_ Cc:
Gerfried> one posting to a list than to rely on some obscure
Gerfried> sentence in one's signature. The header I noticed is a
Gerfried> proposed draft that is included in some MUAs, and will
Gerfried> quite possibly be in by more in the future.
In Gnus, you followup an article with 'f'. There are two modes:
1. default: f replies to everybody, unless there is a mail-copies-to:
2. after config: f replies to predefined mailing list only, unless
mail-copies-to says otherwise.
Both of these, in my mind, have serious problems:
Mode 1: Should be obvious. Not everybody sets the mail-copies-to
Mode 2: When replying to some mailing lists, replying to the mailing
list is not always appropriate. Some examples of when the default
mailing list address is wrong:
- Mail sent to firstname.lastname@example.org, appears on debian-private. Replies
should go to email@example.com, not debian-private.
- often bug reports are cross posted to debian-devel, and replies
often should be copied to the BTS.
- policy requests are done via the BTS, but appear on debian-policy.
- cross posts between multiple mailing lists. Sometimes this can be
important, for instance, if a discussion with an upstream mailing is
relevant to debian-devel.
Another limitation, IMHO, is that the header "mail-copies-to: nobody",
doesn't provide the MUA enough information where the reply should go.
Ok, it shouldn't go to the sender. But what about the list of
addresses under the "To:" header? What about the list of addresses
under the "Cc:" header? Which address/addresses should be used? How
can you guess in such a way as to avoid the above problems?
I do not see how these limitations could be avoided, as the MUA has no
way of knowing where the reply should go. The MUA can find out where
the message was sent, but how does it know which addresses are mailing
lists, which ones are private individuals, and which private
individuals want CCs?
I would prefer another header (does the "followup-to" header do
this??), that is like "reply-to:", except it works for group
followups, rather then private replies. Even better, if it supported
mailing lists *and* newsgroups... If the poster hasn't submitted one,
the mailing list software could add a default one. If there is already
a header, it shouldn't be replaced.
Another-words, I think it should be up to the sender to specify
exactly where the group reply should go. If the sender doesn't say,
then the mailing list should be able to specify. This should happen
without affecting private replies (so reply-to can't be used).
As a side affect, this would eliminate the need for the debates of the
form: but I really do have an email address called "nobody"!
Brian May <firstname.lastname@example.org>