In <[🔎] 4ede8f490910122106s3b375edj982554f6a7b3b869@mail.gmail.com>, Vinicius Massuchetto wrote: >On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote: >> Non-Debian lists do not behave this way. Choosing "reply" is set to >> send an email back to the list - even on sun-managers where the policy >> is to reply off-list and have the OP post a summary. > >Actually, this mailing list is the only one I know that behaves this >way. And I can't see too much sense on some defenses of this behavior >based on technicalities. > >If some people complain from time to time, why this doesn't mean anything? It it was the other way, different people (myself for one) would complain, on both technical AND ease-of-use grounds. The final arbiter would be the mailing list administrators, who can be reached via mail. (I believe I posted their address earlier, it can also be found on the Debian website.) It is unlikely for the list to change, but it definitely won't without their input. The List-* headers have been around for more then a decade. Since then, the RFCs were clarified to indicate the Reply-To field is only for the author's use. Summary <http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html>, including equal time for the best argument for adding/altering the Reply-To field. The place to complain about your client (web or otherwise) not supporting those headers is said client's vendor, not this list. Even for software provided by Debian, this list is not appropriate for getting the issue resolved; the Debian BTS is (wishlist priority). It is semi-on-topic for this list to discuss work-arounds for Debian-provided clients, most of which boil down to using Reply-To-All and then editing the To/Cc lines to match list policy. (BTW, the policy is for *users* not *clients*.) -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.