[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mea máxima culpa
From: |
Brian Barker |
Subject: |
Re: mea máxima culpa |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:29:54 +0100 |
At 14:50 12/09/2013 -0500, Evan Driscoll wrote:
Now, that being said and because I'm sure no one cares, IMO the way
the Lilypond list is set up ("reply" goes to the sender) is
*absolutely* the correct way to run a mailing list, and the
alternative is completely maddening.
It's not just your opinion: mailing list processors have no business
inserting a Reply-To: header, which is instead the sole domain of the
message's author. RFC 2822 appears to require this: "When the
'Reply-To:' field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to which
the *author* of the message suggests that replies be sent" (my
emphasis). The author of a message, of course, is not the list.
What action is *common* is only one of the two things that should be
considered when assigning a default. Also should be considered is
how damaging the other choice is. Replying to the list when you want
to respond just to the sender has the potential to be a much more
"damaging" action than replying to just the sender when you want to
send to the list.
Exactly: the right way fails safe. A message intended to be public
may get sent privately by mistake - a minor inconvenience that can
easily be remedied by sending the message again correctly. The use
of a Reply-To: header directed to a list risks messages intended to
be private being sent publicly - a unfortunate consequence that
simply cannot be undone.
This mailing list is configured unusually but properly.
Brian Barker
- Re: mea máxima culpa, (continued)
- Re: mea máxima culpa, David Rogers, 2013/09/12
- Re: mea máxima culpa, Phil Holmes, 2013/09/12
- Re: mea máxima culpa, David Kastrup, 2013/09/12
- Re: mea máxima culpa, Evan Driscoll, 2013/09/12
- Re: mea máxima culpa, David Kastrup, 2013/09/12
- Re: mea máxima culpa, Carl Peterson, 2013/09/12
- Re: mea máxima culpa,
Brian Barker <=