mailing list "reply to"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

mailing list "reply to"

James Churchman
Is is deliberate that the erlang mailing list does not set the "reply to" to [hidden email] so that when you click reply in your client it does not reply to the list?

This seems a strange option and unlike any other mailing list i have come across :-)



________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

Rick Pettit
On Wed, December 1, 2010 2:20 pm, James Churchman wrote:
> Is is deliberate that the erlang mailing list does not set the "reply to"
> to [hidden email] so that when you click reply in your client
> it does not reply to the list?

Yes.

> This seems a strange option and unlike any other mailing list i have
come across :-)

Search the list archives and you will find out why this is so.

-Rick


________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: mailing list "reply to"

dmercer
In reply to this post by James Churchman
On Wednesday, December 01, 2010, James Churchman wrote:

> Is is deliberate that the erlang mailing list does not set the "reply to"
> to [hidden email] so that when you click reply in your client
> it does not reply to the list?

Yes, it is deliberate.  The idea was that it would be similar to how your
email works.  When someone emails a whole bunch of people, putting them on
the To and Cc lines, when you want to reply, "reply" replies only to the
sender, "reply-all" replies to all recipients.  Likewise with
erlang-questions: "reply" is intended to reply only to the sender, but
"reply-all" will respond to the list.

I'm not the list maintainer, it's just that this question has come up often
enough that I remember the reasoning.

Cheers,

DBM


________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

Richard A. O'Keefe-2
In reply to this post by James Churchman

On 2/12/2010, at 9:20 AM, James Churchman wrote:

> Is is deliberate that the erlang mailing list does not set the "reply to" to [hidden email] so that when you click reply in your client it does not reply to the list?
>
> This seems a strange option and unlike any other mailing list i have come across :-)

It should not be.  *NO* mailing list is supposed to set Reply-To.
See for example http://aperiodic.net/phil/archives/Geekery/list-reply-to.html

Reply-To is for message authors to set when they DON'T want replies to go to
the list.

In "Mail" on a Mac, "Reply" goes to the author, "Reply All" to the list
and the author.


________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

Mazen Harake-3
On 02/12/2010 05:42, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
> Reply-To is for message authors to set when they DON'T want replies to go to
> the list.
Aren't most replies going to the list? E.g. When replying to you I had
to first do Reply All and then remove your name from the To field so
that you don't get a personal copy AND a message is sent to the mailing
list. Isn't the point of the mailing list to have a forum-like
behaviour? If so then the e-mail way of doing it (as you describe below
and I agree with) is NOT the right way but rather "Reply" should go to
the list. I think OP meant that reply should be list-reply.
> In "Mail" on a Mac, "Reply" goes to the author, "Reply All" to the list
> and the author.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
> See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]
>


________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

Richard A. O'Keefe-2

On 2/12/2010, at 8:01 PM, Mazen Harake wrote:

> On 02/12/2010 05:42, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
>> Reply-To is for message authors to set when they DON'T want replies to go to
>> the list.
> Aren't most replies going to the list? E.g. When replying to you I had to first do Reply All and then remove your name from the To field so that you don't get a personal copy AND a message is sent to the mailing list.

Actually, no.  Mailing list software is supposed to look at the addresses and NOT
send a copy to people on the mailing list who are already on the cc list.
So the normal way to reply to everyone on a mailing list is supposed to be
"Reply All" and let the mailing list software sort it out.

> Isn't the point of the mailing list to have a forum-like behaviour?

Yes, which is why mailing list software is supposed to do its job properly.
That means
 - NOT setting Reply-To, which RFC 2822 makes clear is for the use of the
   author of a message only
 - NOT sending duplicate messages


________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

James Churchman
I guess this makes some sense that it does not send duplicate messages!

Before i was removing the other recipients every time with reply all

Tho still it's unintuitive until explained especially as goggle groups, yahoo groups and all the many other malling lists i have still all behave in the opposite fashion with reply to list begin the default. i'd also say sending individual replies should be discourages by default, as everybody gets to learn from the replies to the list.. so even after understanding the reasoning this still feels wrong to me

On 2 Dec 2010, at 22:19, Richard O'Keefe wrote:

>
> On 2/12/2010, at 8:01 PM, Mazen Harake wrote:
>
>> On 02/12/2010 05:42, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
>>> Reply-To is for message authors to set when they DON'T want replies to go to
>>> the list.
>> Aren't most replies going to the list? E.g. When replying to you I had to first do Reply All and then remove your name from the To field so that you don't get a personal copy AND a message is sent to the mailing list.
>
> Actually, no.  Mailing list software is supposed to look at the addresses and NOT
> send a copy to people on the mailing list who are already on the cc list.
> So the normal way to reply to everyone on a mailing list is supposed to be
> "Reply All" and let the mailing list software sort it out.
>
>> Isn't the point of the mailing list to have a forum-like behaviour?
>
> Yes, which is why mailing list software is supposed to do its job properly.
> That means
> - NOT setting Reply-To, which RFC 2822 makes clear is for the use of the
>   author of a message only
> - NOT sending duplicate messages
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
> See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]
>


________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

YC-5
Hi James -

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:15 PM, James Churchman <[hidden email]>wrote:

> I guess this makes some sense that it does not send duplicate messages!
>
> Before i was removing the other recipients every time with reply all
>

I can see how you would think mailing list should munge reply-to if you did
not know how it works and end up modifying the recipients every time - I
quite often wonder why people are in favor of munging, now I know a valid
reason.

Consider that the frustration felt for people who know how it works and
want/need to send private messages when the reply-to is munged.  Few things
feel worse than having a confidential private message to accidentally end up
in a public list.


> Tho still it's unintuitive until explained especially as goggle groups,
> yahoo groups and all the many other malling lists i have still all behave in
> the opposite fashion with reply to list begin the default.


Their settings are wrong - and perhaps their admins also are unfamiliar with
now mailing lists are supposed to work.


> i'd also say sending individual replies should be discourages by default,
> as everybody gets to learn from the replies to the list.. so even after
> understanding the reasoning this still feels wrong to me


The problem with reply-to munging is that it breaks private reply and often
causes people to send a completely private message inadvertently to the
public.  The concept of discouraging private reply for learning is overrated
- people private message because they have a reason to.  If they pm for no
reason they'll learn quickly that for many that's considered poor etiquette,
since that effectively obligates the recipient's time when it's all
voluntary.

My 2 cents.  Cheers,
yc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

James Churchman
YC : guess the PM is a fair point & for that reason maybe it is better that way then, thanks :-)

On 3 Dec 2010, at 02:22, YC wrote:

> Hi James -
>
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:15 PM, James Churchman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I guess this makes some sense that it does not send duplicate messages!
>
> Before i was removing the other recipients every time with reply all
>
> I can see how you would think mailing list should munge reply-to if you did not know how it works and end up modifying the recipients every time - I quite often wonder why people are in favor of munging, now I know a valid reason.
>
> Consider that the frustration felt for people who know how it works and want/need to send private messages when the reply-to is munged.  Few things feel worse than having a confidential private message to accidentally end up in a public list.
>  
> Tho still it's unintuitive until explained especially as goggle groups, yahoo groups and all the many other malling lists i have still all behave in the opposite fashion with reply to list begin the default.
>
> Their settings are wrong - and perhaps their admins also are unfamiliar with now mailing lists are supposed to work.
>  
> i'd also say sending individual replies should be discourages by default, as everybody gets to learn from the replies to the list.. so even after understanding the reasoning this still feels wrong to me
>
> The problem with reply-to munging is that it breaks private reply and often causes people to send a completely private message inadvertently to the public.  The concept of discouraging private reply for learning is overrated - people private message because they have a reason to.  If they pm for no reason they'll learn quickly that for many that's considered poor etiquette, since that effectively obligates the recipient's time when it's all voluntary.
>
> My 2 cents.  Cheers,
> yc
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

Pierpaolo Bernardi
In reply to this post by James Churchman
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 02:15, James Churchman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I guess this makes some sense that it does not send duplicate messages!
>
> Before i was removing the other recipients every time with reply all
>
> Tho still it's unintuitive until explained especially as goggle groups, yahoo groups and all the many other malling lists i have still all behave in the opposite fashion with reply to list begin the default.

Why don't you just hit "reply to all" by default?

________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

Kenji Rikitake
In reply to this post by dmercer
A reference to the history of Reply-To: header handling:
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html

FYI
Kenji Rikitake

________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

Alain O'Dea
I love how this topic resurfaces perennially.  I tried to apply the Reply is
private Reply All goes to Group to a Google Group I created for my
graduating class.  They flipped out and I reversed it.  Young people these
days ;)

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Kenji Rikitake <[hidden email]>wrote:

> A reference to the history of Reply-To: header handling:
> http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
>
> FYI
> Kenji Rikitake
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
> See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

Jesse Gumm
For me, it makes more sense to mangle the reply-to header since 99% of
the time, I'm replying to the mailing list rather than do the
individual.  It makes more sense to me to make the default behavior be
the most common behavior.  I view a mailing list as just another way
of implementing an online forum, and in that regard, the default
action is to reply to the thread, rather than via PM.

If I'm in the minority, and most people actually do private replies
more frequently than public ones, then that makes sense why it's the
default, preferred way.

-Jesse

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Alain O'Dea <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I love how this topic resurfaces perennially.  I tried to apply the Reply is
> private Reply All goes to Group to a Google Group I created for my
> graduating class.  They flipped out and I reversed it.  Young people these
> days ;)
>
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Kenji Rikitake <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> A reference to the history of Reply-To: header handling:
>> http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
>>
>> FYI
>> Kenji Rikitake
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
>> See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
>> To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>>
>



--
Jesse Gumm
Sigma Star Systems
414.940.4866
[hidden email]
http://www.sigma-star.com

________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

YC-5
Hi Jesse -

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Jesse Gumm <[hidden email]> wrote:

> For me, it makes more sense to mangle the reply-to header since 99% of
> the time, I'm replying to the mailing list rather than do the
> individual.  It makes more sense to me to make the default behavior be
> the most common behavior.  I view a mailing list as just another way
> of implementing an online forum, and in that regard, the default
> action is to reply to the thread, rather than via PM.
>

Maybe it is easier to picture this way - what if some of the forums you
frequent all the sudden change their default behavior to pm'ing instead of
replying to forum?  Will that perhaps catch you by surprise?

That's the same with mailing lists not obeying internet standards - they
surprise the heck out of people when all the sudden reply no longer just
goes to the sender, unfortunately just when they need to private message.
 You might think mailing list is the same as forums, but mail clients *are
not* forums.  Reply means replying to sender, and mailing list munging
reply-to are breaking the expected behavior of mail clients.

Hopefully you won't ever inadvertently send a private reply to public when
your 1% need arise, but if you ever do, you will appreciate why mailing
lists should interoperate with the standards instead of breaking them.

My last 2 cents on this off-topic thread.  Cheers,
yc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

Jesse Gumm
Oh totally. I understand the reasoning behind the behavior and I
wouldn't expect anyone to change the behavior of things - that would
lead to some disasters. To be honest, I never even thought about it
before this post, as I've got my gmail configured to reply-all by
default.  It's more just something that did strike me as odd, but I'm
no veteran to mailing lists, and was not aware there even was a
mailing list standard.

If I were coming to mailing lists the first time, I would expect them
to munge the reply-to header, but as it is, I'm not surprised or
hampered by the fact that they don't.

-Jesse

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:21 PM, YC <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Jesse -
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Jesse Gumm <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> For me, it makes more sense to mangle the reply-to header since 99% of
>> the time, I'm replying to the mailing list rather than do the
>> individual.  It makes more sense to me to make the default behavior be
>> the most common behavior.  I view a mailing list as just another way
>> of implementing an online forum, and in that regard, the default
>> action is to reply to the thread, rather than via PM.
>
> Maybe it is easier to picture this way - what if some of the forums you
> frequent all the sudden change their default behavior to pm'ing instead of
> replying to forum?  Will that perhaps catch you by surprise?
> That's the same with mailing lists not obeying internet standards - they
> surprise the heck out of people when all the sudden reply no longer just
> goes to the sender, unfortunately just when they need to private message.
>  You might think mailing list is the same as forums, but mail clients *are
> not* forums.  Reply means replying to sender, and mailing list munging
> reply-to are breaking the expected behavior of mail clients.
> Hopefully you won't ever inadvertently send a private reply to public when
> your 1% need arise, but if you ever do, you will appreciate why mailing
> lists should interoperate with the standards instead of breaking them.
> My last 2 cents on this off-topic thread.  Cheers,
> yc
>
>



--
Jesse Gumm
Sigma Star Systems
414.940.4866
[hidden email]
http://www.sigma-star.com

________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

Allan Wegan
In reply to this post by James Churchman
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Is is deliberate that the erlang mailing list does not set the "reply
to" to [hidden email] so that when you click reply in your
client it does not reply to the list?

Here in Thunderbird 3 i get two reply buttons:
"reply" really replies to the sender of the message (the individual author).
"reply list" replies to the list.

It makes sense for me that way.


> This seems a strange option and unlike any other mailing list i have
come across :-)

Yes, it is unlike other lists, where i have to manually copy the email
address of the author if i really want to reply to the sender only.
There i get two buttons too. But they do the same, because of the faked
reply-to header. I don't like that behaviour, that breaks the standard
behaviour of email and makes the two buttons with different semantic
meanings act the same.
I feel it tries to trick me in sending private messages to the list.
That is really bad behaviour.


Thanks to the list maintainer, for letting the buttons work as expected.
- --
Allan Wegan
Jabber: [hidden email]
ICQ:    209459114
Phone:  +49 40 6732962
Schöneberger Straße 60, 22149 Hamburg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM+hA7AAoJENm5axHh7Acx6E4H/2f6CKe6+CWiuf/UA1l2RjGw
SAwmaFTSfr6nrQMvkbx6mNQ3PjVVeUTD0fX6bxn0/UFW2UQI9+AgKZV+Ozfi/Gsp
BBLVloRK2IfP8dgnVdboMiEH+4i3VlmXVs6iZM4QJf22JWiVdzlKYGvHyu2eLOPo
N+e9V5rcTjRNDK5Q/8+P+jsYPk1tnKu67XiKGtuAxit1Ax6LOYvO9H3Z1E/t92wq
QGEtt5KVkiU1Z5i+yMlppgJwovDEK/F5zn0axqMYN7G1EvbZkHB3sGDwPSbT9PkU
3jTKYr9Jc7wE86fqG6oIunMjH+84t/w7ycIREg5qdjhAxSGev+MQP7nhzfdrzvY=
=Rxn2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

Richard A. O'Keefe-2
In reply to this post by Jesse Gumm

On 4/12/2010, at 4:13 PM, Jesse Gumm wrote:

> For me, it makes more sense to mangle the reply-to header since 99% of
> the time, I'm replying to the mailing list rather than do the
> individual.

In that case, Reply All does *everything* you need with no need to
harm other people by mangling the Reply-To field.

> It makes more sense to me to make the default behavior be
> the most common behavior.

I see the following buttons:
        Delete,Junk;  Reply,Reply All,Forward;  New Message;  Note,To Do.
There isn't isn't any such animal as default behaviour.
If I want a private reply (which I often do), I click on Reply.
Mangling Reply-to would BREAK that, as well as violating RFC 2822.
If I want a public reply (which I often do), I click on Reply All.
*NEITHER* of these is a default.

Why do you want to take easy choice away from me?
What did I ever do to harm you?



________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

Morten Krogh
In reply to this post by James Churchman
Hi

No standards are broken if the list is a robot, that receives mail and
,based on some logic, takes an action. Any member of the list just gets a mail from the list robot, never from an individual member. "Reply to" can then obviously only go to the list.

The list should be seen as a robot with an email address, not as a relay or an alias.

The robot could then perform arbitrarily complex logic.

For instance if I wanted all mails in the thread  " mailing list "reply to"  " I could send the robot an email with "search" or "filter" in the subject line and
a body which could be an erlang expression. In this case

thread == "maling list \"reply to\""

A more complicated example could involve dates, authors, and even regular expressions on the content. You want to find all posts about the function ets:delete in the last year.
Just send the robot a mail. The robot could rather easily handle all of this.

The only loss by having the list be a robort with an email address instead of an alias to all members is that you will never see the private email addresses of the others.
But that is not only bad.  A list is not made to make it easy to send private mails, but instead to encourage sharing knowledge.

Also, empricially we can say that it doesn't work well today because too many MUAs don't do it right. I often get two copies of the mails right after I post myself indicating that lots of members of this list have
MUAs without  a "reply to list" button, bit only a reply-all that duplicates the mails to the previous sender.

We also often see interrupted threads where you can deduce that we missed a part of the conversation. That is presumably because people just hit reply-to.  

I agree that munging is bad, but that is something else.  

Cheers,

Morten.
________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

Raimo Niskanen-2
In reply to this post by Jesse Gumm
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 09:13:11PM -0600, Jesse Gumm wrote:

> For me, it makes more sense to mangle the reply-to header since 99% of
> the time, I'm replying to the mailing list rather than do the
> individual.  It makes more sense to me to make the default behavior be
> the most common behavior.  I view a mailing list as just another way
> of implementing an online forum, and in that regard, the default
> action is to reply to the thread, rather than via PM.
>
> If I'm in the minority, and most people actually do private replies
> more frequently than public ones, then that makes sense why it's the
> default, preferred way.
>
> -Jesse
>

Hi.

I am currently the list maintainer of all mailing lists @erlang.org,
and have been so for some years now.

This discussion surfaces a few times per year and it always
homes in on the same conclusion:

Changing the setting of not munging the Reply-To: header
would cause more harm to many enough users to not motivate
the benefit other users would get. And of course break existing
standards and practices for _mailing lists_.

Read the article supplied below by Kenji Rikitake:
    http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
and why not the old debate referenced by that article:
    http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
    http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml

Here is the summary from the freshest article:

    Summary

    Some people want to munge Reply-To header fields. They believe it makes
    reply-to-list easier, and it encourages more list traffic. It really
    does neither, and not only is it a poor idea but it's forbidden
    by Internet standards.

    The IETF has spoken, and if you violate their standard and munge your
    Reply-To header fields you're just creating problems for everybody.

I still see no new reasons to change the current standarized behaviour.

/ Raimo Niskanen



> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Alain O'Dea <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I love how this topic resurfaces perennially.  I tried to apply the Reply is
> > private Reply All goes to Group to a Google Group I created for my
> > graduating class.  They flipped out and I reversed it.  Young people these
> > days ;)
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Kenji Rikitake <[hidden email]>wrote:
> >
> >> A reference to the history of Reply-To: header handling:
> >> http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
> >>
> >> FYI
> >> Kenji Rikitake
> >>
> >> ________________________________________________________________
> >> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
> >> See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> >> To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jesse Gumm
> Sigma Star Systems
> 414.940.4866
> [hidden email]
> http://www.sigma-star.com
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
> See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]
>

--

/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB

________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mailing list "reply to"

Allan Wegan
In reply to this post by Morten Krogh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> The list should be seen as a robot with an email address, not as a
relay or an alias.

Every server is in fact sort of a robot. That includes regular mail servers.


> Also, empricially we can say that it doesn't work well today because
too many MUAs don't do it right. I often get two copies of the mails
right after I post myself indicating that lots of members of this list have
> MUAs without  a "reply to list" button, bit only a reply-all that
duplicates the mails to the previous sender.
>
> We also often see interrupted threads where you can deduce that we
missed a part of the conversation. That is presumably because people
just hit reply-to.

Much worse are the people using email clients that do not send proper
in-reply-to headers and therefore break the tree view for users using
more advanced clients!


> I agree that munging is bad, but that is something else.

I agree that munging is bad.



- --
Allan Wegan
Jabber: [hidden email]
ICQ:    209459114
Phone:  +49 40 6732962
Schöneberger Straße 60, 22149 Hamburg, Germany

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM/MaKAAoJENm5axHh7AcxXlgIALl41wJbfFna0O+mH44MDhvQ
g7RyRlF1MVot0cIXPZls/EMnoTme0EwMn1LODtSxun1MzvhOvBUgsqMRigwyevBk
Jbp9eFPQ2Fhbo2/55iDPjxP8nm1n2S28chRdtbArI5wUo2mr22UstrVXoKGSFJcS
ZokbeTPu1co064P1poqBn7OX3oMcgLqJssQxaKSwt1uqFZBzX3fEcXGJh1WIEqEE
oQtZl3QroYhO50tfuiUW/FLnivSYfhNPKy6ygKsXZY4jVxCaMUgmTyoYBnkSAeBg
QlcgOBGAR4fAyj3NjSIcdHMOAbDPKRafmCM/HFYC8QvpGc/3zUSPs0pauhKccZ8=
=HDRY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
To unsubscribe; mailto:[hidden email]

12