Thread: Adding Reply-To: to Lists configuration ...
What is the general opinion of this? I'd like to implement it, but not so much so that I'm going to beat my head against a brick wall on it ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> What is the general opinion of this? I'd like to implement it, but not so
> much so that I'm going to beat my head against a brick wall on it ...
I think we've discussed this in the past, and the consensus has always
been that more people like it as-is than want to change it. I'm
certainly in the leave-it-as-is camp.
regards, tom lane
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> wrote: > > > What is the general opinion of this? I'd like to implement it, but not so > much so that I'm going to beat my head against a brick wall on it ... The procmail rules I set up for each mailing list to which I subscribe sets Reply-To to the mailing list *unless* there's already a Reply-To set. If you're going to do it, that's what I'd recommend doing. Jim
Are you saying this is going to make it impossible for me to reply just to the poster, or is this an option that is set by the user via majordomo? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Seymour wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> wrote: > > > > > > What is the general opinion of this? I'd like to implement it, but not so > > much so that I'm going to beat my head against a brick wall on it ... > > The procmail rules I set up for each mailing list to which I subscribe > sets Reply-To to the mailing list *unless* there's already a Reply-To > set. If you're going to do it, that's what I'd recommend doing. > > Jim > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Are you saying this is going to make it impossible for me to reply just > to the poster, or is this an option that is set by the user via majordomo? No, the poster will still be included as part of the headers ... what happens, at least under Pine, is that I am prompted whther I want to honor the reply-to, if I hit 'y', then the other headers *are* strip'd and the mail is set right back to the list ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > Are you saying this is going to make it impossible for me to reply just > > to the poster, or is this an option that is set by the user via majordomo? > > No, the poster will still be included as part of the headers ... what > happens, at least under Pine, is that I am prompted whther I want to honor > the reply-to, if I hit 'y', then the other headers *are* strip'd and the > mail is set right back to the list ... I think my mail reader, 'elm', will always honor the reply-to, which is bad I think. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes: > No, the poster will still be included as part of the headers ... what > happens, at least under Pine, is that I am prompted whther I want to > honor the reply-to, if I hit 'y', then the other headers *are* strip'd > and the mail is set right back to the list ... I'm in the "Reply-To considered harmful" camp. I also don't see any real evidence that the current setup is causing problems. -Doug
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > What is the general opinion of this? I'd like to implement it, but > not so much so that I'm going to beat my head against a brick wall on > it ... Please, please, please, please don't. The choice of the reply path lies with the author or the replier, not with an intermediate party. Both of the former two parties have adequate technical means to achieve their preferred choice automatically [sender: Mail-Followup-To; receiver: reply-to functions in the mail client]. Writing "please Cc me, I'm not subscribed" is not one of them. We have many people writing to the lists while not being subscribed. Consider people writing to pgsql-bugs and not getting replies. I've had that happen to me too many times in other forums. Also, I *want* to be in the recipient list of replies to my posts, so it's easier to find these posts. We've done quite well with the current setup, so I don't see a need to tinker with it. I've always found the Reply-to-enabled lists I'm on to be a more lossy medium. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Doug McNaught said: > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes: > >> No, the poster will still be included as part of the headers ... what >> happens, at least under Pine, is that I am prompted whther I want to >> honor the reply-to, if I hit 'y', then the other headers *are* strip'd >> and the mail is set right back to the list ... > > I'm in the "Reply-To considered harmful" camp. I also don't see any > real evidence that the current setup is causing problems. > And the historical document referred to can be found here: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html and an opposing view here: http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml cheers andrew
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> We've done quite well with the current setup, so I don't see a need to
> tinker with it. I've always found the Reply-to-enabled lists I'm on to
> be a more lossy medium.
The basic issue is that the current setup encourages
reply-to-author-and-list, while adding Reply-To encourages
reply-to-list-only (at least when the replier is using one of the mail
clients I'm used to). Peter correctly notes that reply-to-list-only
creates problems for authors who aren't subscribed. The other point
that looms large for me is that reply-to-list-only forces every
conversation to occur just at the speed and reliability of the list
'bot. Without wishing to tread on anyone's toes, it's undeniable that
we have a long history of slow and unreliable forwarding through the PG
list server. I'd rather have contributors to a thread converse among
themselves, and let the list server catch up when it can.
Personally: if Reply-To is added to the list headers, I can and will
reprogram my mail software to ignore it. But I doubt that most
contributors to the lists have that option.
regards, tom lane
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 07:34:28PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> What is the general opinion of this? I'd like to implement it, but not so
> much so that I'm going to beat my head against a brick wall on it ...
>
Personally I'm against it because it means that I'll often get two
replies when people reply to my postings. However it's not a big
issue for me.
--
Chris Green (chris@areti.co.uk)
"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence."
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 09:33:18 +0000, Chris Green <chris@areti.co.uk> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 02:02:41AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 12:49:46 +0000, > > Chris Green <chris@areti.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > This is a perpetual problem, if people all used the same MUA and > > > (assuming it has the capability) all used the 'reply to list' command > > > to reply to the list everything would be wonderful! :-) > > > > I think using mail-followup-to is better than having people do reply to list. > > > It depends on how the 'reply to list' is implemented surely. With > mutt (the MUA I use) you specify the addresses of known mailing lists > and the 'reply to List' command uses this to detect from the headers > whether the mail is from a list or not and acts accordingly. That doesn't work in general since the client can't know which recipients are actually on the list. However mutt does utilize mail-followup-to headers when doing group replies and that works well for replying to lists.