ANNOUNCE: List Reply-To change

"Beerse, Corné" c.beerse@torex-hiscom.nl
Fri Nov 15 10:34:01 2002


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc MERLIN [mailto:marc_vnc@merlins.org]
> Sent: donderdag 14 november 2002 18:19
> To: Beerse, Corni; E.R.Kooi
> Cc: 'vnc-list@realvnc.com'

Is it already changed, did you a reply to all or something else phony?

> Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: List Reply-To change
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:15:34PM +0100, "Beerse, Corni" wrote:
> > Yea, why? Now you can remove the archive for sure, only questions will
be
> > stored in there.
>
> In case you've never been on another list like this, the proper way to
> answer is "reply to all".

I don't second that. To me, a reply is a reply to where it comes from. In
case of a maillist, it should reply to the maillist.

>
> > so 1 (one) fiasco can change the settings of the maillist?
>
> How many times does it take?
> 1) the mailman interface (used for this list) strongly discourages
>    altering reply-to like it's being done right now.
> 2) we got hit by one of the problems, validating the mailman warning
>
> Isn't the above enough? Do you need to hit the car in front of you a
> second time before you realize you're driving too close?

If the other car is acting phony and I'm driving as I've been told, then I
drive carefully but don't change my driving. This carefull driving can
include taking distance but also passing over or taking a detour to aviod
troubles. Depending on what the other car does, it should be taken from the
road, either direct or after a second mistake. Then it is only allowed back
on the road again after proper punishment, if at all.

Why shoud I change if someone else misbehaves? Why do the good ones always
suffer from the rules to handle misbehaving?

> > Reason to have the reply to the list include:
> > Good fill of the archive: answers with the questions.
>
> No, see above: you just need to learn to answer properly. You
> use answer to all to answer to a list.

See my reply on that above...

To my experience, a maillist is to be seen as a closed newsgroup. I don't
know any newsagent or other news handling tool that needs a reply-to-all to
send a message back to the newsgroup. With reply, they all reply to the
group.

Now don't say that is one of the differences between newsgroups and
maillists. For historical reasons, it is not. The somehow are developped at
the same time.

The reason to set a maillist to 'reply to originator' is mainly for
anouncement maillists and other one-way maillists. Then the maillist
modderator can do its job more easy.

For discussion maillists, like this vnc-list, and other 2-way maillists, the
reply should automate to the list. Only in situations where the discussion
moves away from the subject of the list, the discussion partners should use
direct email addressing.

> > Easy mail handling for the users: select on reply address,
> > automatically reply to the list.
>
> Answer to all is just as easy as answer to the sender. You
> just have to change your habits.

That depends on the way the headers are used in the new situation. Since
that was not clearly stated, I expected the worst.

> Trust me, these arguments have been back and forth on other lists many
> times already.

I think they will do so on manny maillists that alter their pollicies.

>
> Please, before anyone continues to argue, go read:
> http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=6693&group_id=1

Do you have more of those documents? It starts with "The content within this
document is not necessarily up-to-date. Please watch for an updated version
of this document to appear in coming weeks. (2002-05-18)". I regard it is
now way beyond the comming weeks after 18 may 2002 (25 weeks ago...)

In the reference by Chip Rosenthal
(http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html) he nice starts with a
pointer to the definition of munge, which does not work from my site. The
lexicon I use has a nice definition: Mash Until No Good
(http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/mung.html ,
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/munge.html) He only discusses
why NOT to add or replace the reply-to: field. He has a point that the
origional reply-to address should not be removed, it is there for a reason.
However he forgets the maillist can add its address here, leaving the
origional in place. Do I need to go trough his summary?

The other refference by Simon Hill starts with the origional reason for the
reply-to: field. The way I read it, it clearly states that it is there for
what we now call discussion-maillists.

In the end, comparing both pages it is nice they have much similarities in
the summary of reasons to or not to use a reply-to: field.

>
> > Then there are the spam-block-mail-addresses. I personally
> don't reply to
> > them.
>
> I absolutely agree with you. I think the person who does this
> should be
> removed from the list. This is rude and stupid.

Maillist can accept and forward messages from known members only, hence
forwarding only from known addresses.

I like to add here, in the current world of mail spam, I don't like my email
address to be send to everyone on every list. If it is possible I'd like my
address stripped from the header if it goes trough a maillist. It would at
least be nice if it is an option.

>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 04:26:52PM +0100, E.R.Kooi wrote:

Uh? What kind of reply did you use? This was not in my origional
message..... That is absolutly against netiquette if you send a message to
me. I'd accepted it if it was send to the list but it is not, it is only
CC'd to the list.

> > As far as I am concerned I consider it a bad idea. Now, I
> am afraid, I will
> > not see the solutions to problems raised, because you will
> have to change
> > the reply address before sending the message.
>
> Uh?
> Absolutely not. You use reply to all which replies to the list and the
> author of the question.
>
> With this version of  mailman it means the sender may  get
> two copies of
> the answer,  but there are some  ways to solve this  minor
> inconvenience
> (see the URL above) and a mailman upgrade can take care of that too.

All involving mangling the subscription list on a per-mail base, resulting
in loss of messages, mainly to addresses directly involved in the discussion
taking place. Hence better not do such things.

I know situations where it is not allowed (and in the system restricted) to
send messages to just anyone on the internet. Target addresses of mail
messages have to pass qualification. For maillist members, it is the
maillist that is accepted, the other members most likely not. Those
situations will come more and more practice in secured areas. The new
maillist setup will make it harder to take place in a discussion.

>
> Marc
> --
> "A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to
> type in" - A.S.R.

A mouse is an annimal, known for its tiny eyes, long tail and furry skin.
How does that compare to a

Smith & Westson, an origional point and click interface...

> Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
>                      .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking

;-)

> Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/   |   Finger
> marc_f@merlins.org for PGP key
>

CBee