AW: AW: [Mldonkey-users] Re: AW: re[7]:

[Alexander Gräf]

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: address@hidden 
> [mailto:address@hidden
> rg] Im Auftrag von Pierre Etchemaïté
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Juni 2005 21:27
> An: address@hidden
> Betreff: Re: AW: [Mldonkey-users] Re: AW: re[7]:
> 
> > 
> > You know, theres another issue: The reply-to headers should 
> always be set to the mailing list...
> 
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> 

>From the link above:

> It violates the principle of minimal munging.

Thats right, but what do you gain from following this principle? Every 
reasonable mailing list software allows for "munging" the Reply-To-header, 
there isn't any overhead associated with it, and I dont think it will break 
anything.

> It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer.

Sure, it provides the benefit/comfort of not having to click "Respond to all" 
and then delete the author from the recipients list, only leaving the mailing 
list's address.

> It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will direct a 
> response. 

Everyone is free to change the recipient. In fact, I can send all my responses 
to messages from the mailing list to address@hidden, if I wish. I could even 
include him CC, so he gets a copy. Where does Reply-To-"munging" taking away my 
freedom?

> It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer. 

I cannot see where any funtionality gets lost. It only has an impact on how the 
client mailing program acts when the default "Reply"-action is started.

> It removes important information, which can make it impossible to get back to 
> the message sender.

Yes, thats a point. However, I find it very unlikely to have people with 
email-boxes which cannot be sent email to, so that the Reply-To header is 
required. In fact, it is impossible on *this* list, because you need to confirm 
your subscribtion via a link which is send to your email-address, and since 
spiralvoice changed security to only allow subscribers to post to the list, it 
would not be possible to have different addresses for receiving and sending. 
Thus the Reply-To has no use anymore, and can be "munged" without loosing any 
information.

> It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to coddle those 
> running brain-dead software. 

No, it gives brain-dead people (like me), the simple and comfortable option of 
simply hitting "Reply". In about 90% of all cases, I want to send my mail to 
the mailing list, and not to the original author.

> It violates the principle of least work because complicates the procedure for 
> replying to messages. 

No, it makes it easy. Simply hit reply, and you get your mail to the list.

> It violates the principle of least surprise because it changes the way a 
> mailer works. 

That could be a point, however, if I receive a mail from the list, I would 
expect to have my response send back to the list if I simply hit "Reply".
 
> It violates the principle of least damage, and it encourages a failure mode 
> that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse.

If someone writes insulting mails, he generally should be careful in not 
sending it to people who could get insulted. Thats what I call "brain-dead": 
sending confidential mails to a mailing list. Confidential/insulting means: 
check three times if the recipient is the right person. But in most cases we 
dont want to insult someone, or send confidentials, but simply reply to a post 
on the mailing list, *to* the mailing list.

> 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 had not yet contact to each and every mailing list subsciber, neither had the 
author of this doc. So how can he be sure the subscribers do not want it with 
"munged" Reply-To headers? There is at least one subscriber (me), who wants it.

We can argue a lot about that, however, most mailing-lists which I am 
subscribed to have the Reply-To-header "munged", and thus make it very 
comfortable for me to write responses. No one there did ever argue about this 
feature. The author of the doc has his points, but I dont trust someone who 
still reads his mails with a console program (in the year 2002!). Indeed, the 
link in this doc to the mentioned software is already dead, and other locations 
tell me it is not Y2K compliant :-).

Cheers, Alex