Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
IMAP is not interesting for me at work, and there is reply-to-all feature yet, so I am not sure the problem is coming from Google MUA, but from the reply-to field instead. I read the Celejar link (thanks for him to have brought it up) and tried to think that it was the reason why we don't have it in debian ML. But I totally disagree with it.
Next italics-bleu text is coming from http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
.It Adds Nothing
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.
? Of course there is a plus. You don't have to pay attention to what kind of reply you are doing. (Nor what kind of MUA you are using....)
It Makes Things Break
It, in fact, decreases
functionality. Reply-To munging destroys the "reply-to-author"
capability. Munging makes this command act effectively the same as
the "reply-to-group" function. We haven't added anything new, we've
only taken away. Reply-To munging is not merely benign,
it is harmful.
? it missed something.... we are talking about adding Reply-to to ML, not to day-to-day emails. It is a wrong way not to take the use into consideration: most of the replies are done to the ML, so we can easily consider replying to the whole ML as a default behaviour. In very particular cases, when you don't want to share, you can do the cut/paste effort to target only one contributor, can't you ? So what's broken ?
Freedom of Choice
Some administrators justify Reply-To
munging by saying,
"All responses should go directly to the list anyway." This is
arrogant.
? choice of what ? In our case we are talking about more convenience, and one point that can be checked is having the default behaviour matching the needs. No choice is bad. But what about the defaults tuned up ?
Well, I still can't see any problem using reply-to. For ML usage, of course. (And there is also other usage, but no the matter here.)
Gal'
2007/3/30, Ron Johnson <
ron.l.johnson@cox.net>:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/30/07 08:32, galevsky@gmail.com wrote:
> I am forwarding previous answers.... and adding that I do not want to
> pop these mails since I suscribed lots of ML, not only debian ones, and
> it is more convenient for me to read&write from gmail than poping 3
> times (work - home - laptop) thousands of mails.....
Complain to Google that their MUA is lacking an important feature.
Reply-to-list
OR
IMAP functionality.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGDRlVS9HxQb37XmcRAgGSAKCWVYu9W235eJVQN6vJ3ymOTUTOvgCgoFDu
dK5/AdxnWKDSdZ9GY969Vv4=
=kFoy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: