[Haskell-cafe] [off-topic / administrative] List Reply-to
mikael at johanssons.org
Wed Oct 11 04:41:34 EDT 2006
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Misha Aizatulin wrote:
> Matthias Fischmann wrote:
>> Some lists have the Reply-To: set to the list address. I think you
>> can even configure the From: to be haskell-cafe instead of the poster,
>> making the poster merely identifiable by the Sender: field.
>> Do you have strong opinions on this subject?
> Here is an argument against Reply-To munging. I'd say I agree with it:
* It violates the principle of minimal munging.
This is a valid point. It may, though, possibly be a small price to pay
* It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer.
I disagree. I find it annoying to no end to either
1) get multiple copies of mails concerning discussions I participate in or
2) have to manually re-edit the header each and every time I want to keep
a discussion on a mailing list, possibly with added trouble finding the
right adress to send to
For mailing lists which have the characteristics that most replies are
meant for the list, munging is a much more comfortable way to deal with
things than non-munging.
* It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will direct
Not much. And it reduces the amount of surprise. We have by now left the
time when most lists where built as huge To/CC-lists (or at least most
people have left those times), and the Reply-to-all simply is not the
expected behaviour to reply to a list with one single adress.
* It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable
I don't agree.
* It removes important information, which can make it impossible to
get back to the message sender.
This is again a valid point.
* It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to coddle
those running brain-dead software.
I don't agree. I view pine as something that should be classified as
reasonable, and I feel penalized by non-munging.
* It violates the principle of least work because complicates the
procedure for replying to messages.
I don't agree.
* It violates the principle of least surprise because it changes the
way a mailer works.
I don't agree.
* It violates the principle of least damage, and it encourages a
failure mode that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse.
I'd be surprised if private mail leakage happens that much to
Haskell-cafe, or for that matter if it'd be embarrassing to the point the
author is talking about.
* Your subscribers don't want you to do it. Or, at least the ones who
have bothered to read the docs for their mailer don't want you to do it.
I'm a subscriber. I'd prefer munging.
Mikael Johansson | To see the world in a grain of sand
mikael at johanssons.org | And heaven in a wild flower
http://www.mikael.johanssons.org | To hold infinity in the palm of your hand
| And eternity for an hour
More information about the Haskell-Cafe