[arch-haskell] Layout of ABS tree for Haskell packages?

Isaac Dupree ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org
Thu Oct 21 20:32:45 EDT 2010

Thanks for the dialogue!

On 10/21/10 12:55, Xyne wrote:
> Isaac Dupree wrote:
>> Please don't.  Nearly no technical mailing-list sets Reply-To, and in
>> particular neither the Arch lists nor the Haskell lists do.*
> I don't know about the Haskell lists, but the Arch lists that I follow use
> Reply-To Headers

Oh, you're right.  I guess I didn't notice because I never tried to 
reply privately to a message on those lists yet. Sorry.

On the grub-dev list which is also configured with Reply-To, I've 
already twice sent two messages publicly that I meant to be private, 
thus spamming people like you.  (Hmm, I'd think my client could notice 
that there's a List-Id or maybe List-Post header and therefore warn me 
if I use "Reply (to sender)" and one of the recipients is the list.  Or 
something like that.  I'm not sure why Thunderbird doesn't do that. 
Would it violate RFC?)

>>   If it's
>> really impossible to use mailing-lists with GMail (I don't know, I don't
>> use GMail) then I guess you should find another client.  Some clients
>> have a "Reply To List" specifically, and for those that don't, "Reply To
>> All" or equivalent is usually acceptable enough (are there any clients
>> that don't have this??) (it produces the effect Xyne notes of "Is there
>> a reason that everyone seems to send their replies to individual posters
>> and only CC to the list?", but this works out acceptably in practice
>> because To and CC have the same effect - emails go there -, and because
>> the mailing-list defaults not to send extra copies to people who are
>> already To/CC'ed)
> It doesn't "work out in practice" for me. I filter my messages into different
> directories for each mailing list and having one that doesn't work the same as
> the others is irksome. "To" and "CC" have the "same effect" insofar as the
> messages arrive but the rest is not the same.
> I think all posts to a list discussion should go directly to the list without
> CC'ing others the same message. Replying directly to someone else and CC'ing to
> the list is like replying to one person in a conversation while looking
> directly at another. Sure, he can hear you, but you're not directing your reply
> to the right person and it's somewhat rude.

I mean, if "reply to all" instead said "To:" the list and "Cc:" the 
other people like you, you would be equally annoyed (or almost as 
annoyed, at least -- the philosophical annoyance would be less bad). 
That's the sense in which "to" and "cc" are the same.  I already gave up 
on always changing "cc"s to "to"s in e-mail exchanges with the three 
other people in my family, because my email client doesn't help me (and 
I've never heard of one that does), and it doesn't make a technological 
difference .

That's a good point about filtering into directories though.  In 
Thunderbird, I dislike being to/cc'ed because it doesn't put the message 
in the corresponding list's directory; but on the other hand I do like 
being to/cc'ed because then I'm more sure to notice when someone replied 
to me (maybe there's a way to set filters so that I notice all replies 
to my post, even the ones I receive only through the list?  I haven't 
figured that out yet.)

> Given, this may be a client issue and in general I think people should fix
> "broken" software rather than expect others to find a workaround for them, but
> if a single extra header resolves the issue and is commonly employed on related
> lists then I don't see the problem. Furthermore, arguing that each recipient
> should implement a manual workaround each time a message is sent instead of a
> simpler global workaround on the list doesn't make sense. Neither fixes the
> problem at the source but one is far simpler than the other.

Does the header resolve the issue, though?  On the Arch lists and GRUB 
list I mentioned above, I have been cc:ed in responses to some of my 
posts.  I think this is because many people without "reply-to-list" 
functionality have no choice but to get in the habit of using "reply to 
all" to reply publicly to a mailing-list post (unless they only live on 
mailing-lists that set Reply-To).


More information about the arch-haskell mailing list