Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
pocallaghan at gmail.com
Thu Jul 8 16:13:10 UTC 2010
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 10:45 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:14:23 -0430,
> Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:29 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > Also, people that are used to Reply-To munging can get used to
> > > clicking "reply to all"; it's a matter of habit, but no functionality
> > > is lost.
> > Why does no-one ever mention "Reply To List" as the proper way to, duh,
> > reply to the list?
> It isn't always the case that you want to reply to the list. When you want
> that, then sure that is something you can do.
Only if the people you reply to include the List-* headers. For example,
you didn't, so I can't use Reply-To-list for this reply (without
manually munging the headers of course). This forces me to use
Reply-To_All or to start cutting-and-pasting addesses. I guess that's
another reason it isn't so popular.
> But you don't always know if people are subscribed or not and there may be
> cases where people like getting a second message directly to them.
> The proper way to indicate that you don't want separate direct copies in
> addition to the list copy is to set an appropriate mail-followup-to header.
> Then things work automatically and people don't need to guess your intentions,
> remember them or notice them buried in the signature part of an email message.
That surely is up to the receiver, not the sender. Furthermore, as it
will vary from list to list it seems impractical to have to set it
individually for each post if the MUA doesn't support it automatically
More information about the users