fedora-websites-list reply address

[Thomas Chung]

Hi All,

I just noticed that "fedora-websites-list(a)redhat.com" is not the default reply
address
for this list.  

I think it should.

Anyone agree with me on this matter? Say "Aye" or "Nay" :)

--
Thomas Chung
FedoraNEWS.ORG (http://fedoranews.org)
"..where you can free your knowledge for your free community!"

[Rahul Sundaram]

Thomas Chung wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I just noticed that "fedora-websites-list(a)redhat.com" is not the default reply
> address
> for this list.  
>
> I think it should.
>
> Anyone agree with me on this matter? Say "Aye" or "Nay" :)
>   
>  
Aye!, IMO no voting is necessary to do sensible things like this. Just do it

regards
Rahul

[Paul W. Frields]

On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 02:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  >I just noticed that "fedora-websites-list(a)redhat.com"
> is not the default reply address
>  >for this list.  
>  >
>  >I think it should.
>  >
>  >Anyone agree with me on this matter? Say "Aye" or "Nay" :)
>  >  
>  >
>  Aye!, IMO no voting is necessary to do sensible things like this. Just do it 
Disagree here.  If this happens, my "Ctrl+R" doesn't let me send a
private reply in Evolution.  With a normal lits, I can do either that,
or "Ctrl+L" to reply to the list (or "Ctrl+Shift+R" to do both). 
You're
going to find just as many people who love changing the reply-to as hate
it.  Honestly I don't care, but what I *do* care about is that some
Fedora lists do it one way, and others do it another way.  THAT is
really annoying.  So whoever's acting like the oddball, do us a favor
and cut it out!   1/2 ;-)

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/

[Patrick W. Barnes]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  Thomas Chung wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I just noticed that "fedora-websites-list(a)redhat.com" is not the
> > default reply address
> > for this list. 
> > I think it should.
> >
> > Anyone agree with me on this matter? Say "Aye" or "Nay" :)
> >  
> >
>  Aye!, IMO no voting is necessary to do sensible things like this. Just
>  do it
>
>  regards
>  Rahul
>  
+1

Most of the other key lists modify the Reply-To header, I'm used to it,
I say we follow the leaders.

-- 
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64(a)n-man.com

www.n-man.com
--

[Karsten Wade]

On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 02:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  Thomas Chung wrote:
>  
>  >Hi All,
>  >
>  >I just noticed that "fedora-websites-list(a)redhat.com" is not the default
> reply address
>  >for this list.  
>  >
>  >I think it should.
>  >
>  >Anyone agree with me on this matter? Say "Aye" or "Nay" :)
>  >  
>  >
>  Aye!, IMO no voting is necessary to do sensible things like this. Just do it 
My -1 was implied by the fact that I intentionally set up the list to
have no munging.

It is more than just MHO that munging is wrong and harmful.  I'll leave
the googling to you, but many smart and wise people agree that "munging
reply-to is considered harmful."

I don't like lowering standards of behavior to match stupid practices.
The default should be to do no harm.  Accidentally sending to one person
v. a list is easy to fix.  Accidentally sending to a list instead of one
person is not so easy to fix.  Especially when private thoughts are
archived publicly.

That said, if no one turns up to back up this position, oh well.  I'll
let the consensus have enough rope to hang itself with.

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint:  2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115    5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41   
                       Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi

> My -1 was implied by the fact that I intentionally set up the list to
> have no munging.
>
> It is more than just MHO that munging is wrong and harmful.  I'll leave
> the googling to you, but many smart and wise people agree that "munging
> reply-to is considered harmful."
>  
The inconsistency with this is more harmful. Many other Fedora lists 
change the reply address. Decide on it, one way or the other and stick 
with it across all the Fedora mailing lists rather than having a 
individual policy for each and every list which is inconsistent with 
each other. My vote for +1 implied staying with what others lists have 
followed. If it's require a debate, its needed to be done at the project 
level and not here.

regards
Rahul

[Karsten Wade]

On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 18:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  Hi
>  
>  >My -1 was implied by the fact that I intentionally set up the list to
>  >have no munging.
>  >
>  >It is more than just MHO that munging is wrong and harmful.  I'll leave
>  >the googling to you, but many smart and wise people agree that "munging
>  >reply-to is considered harmful."
>  >
>  The inconsistency with this is more harmful. Many other Fedora lists 
>  change the reply address. Decide on it, one way or the other and stick 
>  with it across all the Fedora mailing lists rather than having a 
>  individual policy for each and every list which is inconsistent with 
>  each other. My vote for +1 implied staying with what others lists have 
>  followed. If it's require a debate, its needed to be done at the project 
>  level and not here. 
I disagree.  The project-level decision was made outside of our control,
long before I was involved.  I think it was an incorrect decision to
make.  Fedora is about leading with smart standards, not doing the same
things others do because it is comfie.

If we are to make a project-level change, it has to start somewhere.

But really, much better people than me have debated reply-to munging
endlessly.  I happen to fall on one side of that debate, but whatever.
There are more important things to worry about than the fact that we
make every person fend for themselves on mailing lists by enabling them
to accidentally send private thoughts to world.  I, for one, always
check my headers before I send.  Which is why I'm not usually caught by
munging or lack of munging.  My email goes where I want it to go because
I sent it that way, not because of some munging.

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint:  2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115    5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41   
                       Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi

> I disagree.  The project-level decision was made outside of our
> control,
> long before I was involved.  I think it was an incorrect decision to
> make.  Fedora is about leading with smart standards, not doing the same
> things others do because it is comfie.
>
> If we are to make a project-level change, it has to start somewhere.
>   
>  
I am not sure every list having a different policy is a smart standard 
for Fedora to be leading. Doing these changes on a per list basis in a 
inconsistent way will likely screw up anyone like me who is interested 
in participating in various Fedora lists.  Sure, anyone could workaround 
that by cross checking the list headers but thats not necessarily best 
practice.

My 2 paise

regards
Rahul

[Patrick W. Barnes]

With a 3-1 vote in favor of changing the Reply-To address to the list,
I'm making this change.  If this sparks enough complaints, we can change
it back.  For now, this brings us in line with the other key lists.

-- 
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64(a)n-man.com

www.n-man.com
--