On Dec 5, 1997, at 15:49, Tyson Dowd wrote: > On 02-Dec-1997, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, please don't muck with reply-to. That's evil. And if I > > hadn't lost my disk, I'd have a handy-dandy url for you. Hmmm. Try > > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > > Which, as we have discussed before on this list, is an incorrect > assessment of the problem as it applies to the debian lists.
Let me agree 100% on this. I visited the URL listed above, and it didn't convince me at all, at least not for the case under discussion here. The URL covers with a lot of detail how to send a reply to the original poster of a message or to the whole recipient list; obviously, the problem here is altogether different. > 1. We have a policy of no cc:s, but nearly everyone uses them > because there is no Reply-To: set. Right. > 2. We have information that should be on the list going into > private email instead (where it is effectively *lost* to all > other developers). It would seem most of the people just hit reply-to without even looking at the headers that are generated for them (perhaps not every mail reader will show you these headers). > 3. We have threads jumping from debian-private to debian-devel > because people accidently add the wrong To: or Cc: header by > hand after replying to the individual instead of the list. > Nothing too confidential has been disclosed yet. > 4. We are penalizing people with low-bandwith or high-cost net > connections by forcing them to download things multiple times. When I first asked about Reply-To, I thought this single issue would be more than enough reason to add a Reply-To header. I have to put up with lots of duplicates, and I only realize they are duplicates AFTER I have downloaded them via modem. It is very annoying, and I'm really considering unsubscribing just because of this (not that many people will notice this, but I thought the list maintainers would want to know what issues their users have to put up with). > On the plus side, in the very occasional situations where a "Reply-To:" > is useful, we don't munge it. This is useful when you want to reply to > someone in person, but their "From:" address doesn't work, or if > you want to move a discussion from one mailing list to another (except > that if people use "group reply" as advocated by that URL, > it will probably just move it to *both* lists). Exactly. > I'd like it to be fixed, but it seems that there are a few people who > have strong opinions on the matter, but are not prepared to discuss or > fix the problems it causes. For whatever it is worth, I am subscribed to other mailing lists (namely, ACE's), which add a Reply-To header; not only have I NEVER seen a duplicate coming from this list (unless I'm CC'ed directly by the sender), but I have also NEVER EVER seen anybody complain about the list munging an original Reply-To header. > Tyson Dowd -- Gonzalo Diethelm # Windows 95: n. 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for [EMAIL PROTECTED] # a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally =Debian Linux= # coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit www.debian.org # company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .