gnu-arch-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] "reply all" etiquette: reply-all vs. reply'ing to l


From: Stephen J. Turnbull
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] "reply all" etiquette: reply-all vs. reply'ing to list
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:48:49 +0900
User-agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.5 (chayote, linux)

>>>>> "David" == David Allouche <address@hidden> writes:

    David> What I do is use special accounts in Evolution for the
    David> major mailing lists I post to, which set the Reply-To
    David> header to the mailing list

This is what Reply-To is for!  Helping correspondents to automatically
set up the reply as you think it should be done!

As to why munging is bad: Suppose you cross-post for good reason, and
one of the mailing lists has an "overwrite Reply-To" policy?  You
lose; the reply-to redirects to only one list.  (This also applies to
a case where you wish to ensure that a non-subscriber gets the reply,
too.)

On the other hand, suppose you reply to the portion of a cross-post
that pertains only to one of the lists, and you want to redirect
replies to the on-topic list.  But if the omitted list has an "add
myself to Reply-To" policy, you lose again (and if it's "overwrite",
you look like an idiot).  It's simply not possible to automatically
redirect subthreads on such a list.

    David> But then I might be missing something (I have not yet read
    David> the whole thread).

Read RFC 2822 first.  Reply-To is for the use of authors.  If the ML
intends to assert author's rights (some do, especially announce-style
lists), then it's OK.  Otherwise, not.

RFC 2369, which defines headers for the use of mailing lists, is also
relevant.  An MUA which is RFC-2369-aware and defaults to a reply
command that prefers the List-Post address when it is available will
do fine for the masses oppressed by Microsoft emulation.

It's true that the proponents of Reply-To abuse have a good argument
in their favor.  But it just boils down to "We don't need the feature
you want, so why should we not hijack a long-standardized header
(In-Reply-To has its roots in RFC 600-something in the 1970s, IIRC),
and pay a tiny cost in adding the feature to our software, so that you
can keep the facilities you've enjoyed for 30 years?"

"All Internet made you by now ours is!"


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]