[OT] no Reply-To: header

[Andre Speelmans]

On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 02:54:31PM -0400, Joe(theWordy)Philbrook wrote:
> It would appear that on Apr 8, Gerrit did say:
> 
> > Joolz wrote:
> > > This is not a fedora question, but her is goes...
> > > 
> > > Many people on this (and other) mailing list(s) don't use a "Reply-To:
> > > [list]". I use Mutt, is there a way to have Mutt use the To: address
> > > (not the From: address) when making a reply? Thanks!
> > 
> > Reply-To is bad. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> > 

[summary snipped]

> OK suppose for the sake of argument, that we would all, given the
> benefit of your knowledge, come to the same conclusion that Reply-To:
> munging is as bad as you and Chip seam to think. 

Which we won't ;)
I will probably get some flames for this, but will post it anyway....

Gerrit repeatedly said in his summary that users of decent mailreaders get
punished when the Reply-To: header gets munged. That may be so, although I
really don't see why (flamers: no need to call me dumb or stupid, I will admit
that here and now, so we can all save the bandwidth).
Posting something on the list is getting replied on the list. If there is a
really urgent reason why this can not be done: say so in your message. This is
"normal" procedure. And if you already have to say in your message you can not
read the answers on the list, but they should be posted to you, then it is
just a very small amount of work to add the address where the replies should
be send. It is not the place of the reader to have to think about where
sending the reply. It is the responsibility of the sender to state is clearly.

> And suppose that we convinced RedHat to modify mailman's behavior to
> stop munging the Reply-To: header.
> 
> How would list subscribers then use a reply function to send a list reply?
> (Pardon my ignorance, but I don't really know how it's supposed to be
> done...)

Some would probably answer: use a decent mailreader! ;-)
I think the way it is implemented (munging the Reply-To: header) is the best.
So users of decent and not so decent mailreaders send their replies to where
it should go: the list! A lot of posters don't want to get the replies send to
them AND to the list.
They are subscribers of this list. Any reply posted to the list will get to
them. Why send them 2 replies?
Again: asking on the list is getting answered on the list. That way everybody
can learn from it.

> I also think that on one point at least, I agree with Chip's point that
> sometimes the Sender may not be sending mail "from" a mail address
> on which he/she can receive replies, in which case, If mailman is going
> to munge an existing Reply-To: with the list address, shouldn't the
> original Reply-To: be at least added to the Cc: list?

As I stated before: if the sender needs to get replies oof the list and on
another address, he should say so in his message. It's his/her responsibility
to tell others of this situation.

-- 
Regards,

Andre