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

Re: [OT] mailing lists versus usenet / reply to list, reply-to, reply

On Monday 2009 January 05 17:27:44 Ken Teague wrote:
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > See, I just think you guys should stop using bad clients.  ;)  Kmail
> > replies to the list (and only to the list) by default.  (Which, actually,
> > appears to be a violation on the relevant standards.  :P)
> Is Kmail available for Win32?  I'm at work on my laptop and don't have
> the luxury of Linux all day.

I don't really know.  I haven't been following KDE development since they 
decided to release 4.0 without the ABI compatibility guarantees I was 
expecting.  That said, I think KDE 4 (and in particular Kmail) is available 
for Win32.

I wasn't completely serious though.  Kmail has it's own standards violations 
and misc. problems.  It's possible that finding a "good MUA" is like finding 
a flying unicorn, not possible.

> I also stated in my previous post that the reply-to field was missing
> from the SMTP header.  I can manually add it from my MUA (as I did with
> this mailing) but must I need to for each and every message I reply to
> on this mailing list?  Is it the MUA that's broken?... or the mailing list?

Changing the Reply-To header is dangerous and definitely against standards.  
Automated software adding a Reply-To header is arguably against standards and 
arguably dangerous.[1]   I'm not sure about Mail-Followup-To, but I suspect 
it's in the same boat.  The standard header for information about where to 
send mail directed at the list is List-Post, which is added by the Debian 
mailing list software.[2]

A good MUA should provide a "Reply to List" feature that uses the information 
in the List-Post header.  It is more pleasant than any method involving 
manually specifying or editing the To/CC/BCC addresses.
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss@iguanasuicide.net                     ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.net/                      \_/     

[1] That doesn't prevent other mailing lists and list software from doing it, 
but it is bad practice.  It's arguably dangerous because it does more damage 
to accidentally send a private message to a public list (It can't be 
un-sent.) than to send a list message to a private address (It can be 
forwarded or resent to the proper address.)

[2] For good or ill, this isn't a "plain" address field, so it is a bit harder 
for MUA authors to support than Reply-To etc.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: