[Ffmpeg-devel] reply-to headers and the mailinglist

[Rich Felker]

On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 06:26:48PM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal.cx> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 11:58:01AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> Erik Slagter <erik at slagter.name> writes:
> >> 
> >> > On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 18:20 +0200, Fran?ois Revol wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > Setting relpy-to to the list addrss only makes it difficult to reply
> >> >> > off-list, if that's what you actually want to do.
> >> >> 
> >> >> But it's not what I usually want to do.
> >> >> 
> >> >> If I want to do that I just "Reply to Sender" which does the correct 
> >> >> thing.
> >> >
> >> > Exactly. The default action for a mailing list is to reply to all, not
> >> > an individual, otherwise I could hardly call it a mailing list.
> >> 
> >> There is no such thing as a default action.  The users has several
> >
> > Yes there is. It's called the "reply" command and it replies to the
> > address in the "Reply-to:" header, otherwise the address in the
> > "From:" header.
> 
> Says who?  When I'm replying to a list posting, I always use the
> "reply to all" command, so for me that's the default.

Then your reply-to-all command is broken. Reply-to-all is supposed to
address your reply to ALL recipients and the sender of the message
you're replying to, i.e. it should have been addressed both to the
list (the recipient) and to me (the sender).

> >> commands to choose from, and they do different things.  The normal
> >> thing to do when replying to a list posting, is to use the "reply to
> >> all" function, which does the right thing, independently of any
> >> reply-to header.
> >
> > Not it does not! It will reply both to the list AND the sender, which
> > doubles the mail traffic and pisses the sender (me) off to no end!!!!
> 
> Most mailing list software can be configured not to send mail to
> addresses already in the To or Cc headers.  This is usually also the
> default setting, so no duplication here.

This would be very annoying for me...

> Furthermore, most mail
> server will also filter out duplicate mail.  Should duplicates still
> arrive, a good mail reader will filter them.

...since I send all mail addressed to a list but not delivered through
that list to /dev/null (for idiots who reply-to-all).

> 
> >> > Also using the definition of the url
> >> > (http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html) means that about half
> >> > of the mailers is broken. Reminds me of a dutch proverb: "The whole is
> >> > mad, said the lunatic." 
> >> >
> >> > I am not going to switch to another mailer to be more correct according
> >> > to some people.
> >> 
> >> Are you saying Evolution doesn't have a  "reply to all" function?  I
> >> would consider that broken, ideed.
> >
> > Reply to all is NOT THE CORRECT COMMAND! "Reply to list" is the
> > correct command, but very few mailers have this, and normally you have
> > to tell the mailer all the lists you're subscribed to in order for it
> > to work.
> 
> Go ask on linux-kernel.

I hope you know what I think of the kernel developers already..

> Over there, "reply to all" is the preferred
> thing, and for a good reason.  The list traffic is huge, and getting a
> private copy of replies makes them easier to spot.

I ABSOLUTELY HATE private copies. I keep mplayer/ffmpeg mail separate
from personal mail for a very good reason!! Presumably all the other
developers except you do too.

> It also has the
> advantage, that people can join in one thread, without subscribing to
> the list.

This does not work well.

Rich