Hi. Le mar. 12 févr. 2019 à 17:49, Eitan Adler <li...@eitanadler.com> a écrit : > > (please make sure to add me to the CC as the mailing list is presently broken)
I confirm that with either "Reply" or "Reply all", the Gmail web interface will *not* add your address to the CC. :-( > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 07:08, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 12:33, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 11:16, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > > > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 09:24, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > > > > > Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 10:02, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > I checked a few other ASF lists and they all have Reply-To set > > > > > > either > > > > > > to the current list or to dev@ for lists such as commits@ and > > > > > > notifications@ > > > > > > > > > > I had a look at that too. > > > > > But IMO > > > > > * "dev" and > > > > > * "commits", "notifications", ... > > > > > are different cases in that the former relays messages that originated > > > > > from real people while the latter comes from a "bot" and it would make > > > > > no sense to reply to it. > > > > > > > > Yes. That's deliberate, for the reason you state. > > > > The point is that all the lists have Reply-To set. > > > > > > Sorry, I don't follow the reasoning; why should the setting be > > > the same for two different cases? > > > > Huh? > > > > The setting is not the same. > > > > They all have Reply-To set, however as I wrote, the actual setting is > > not the same for all the cases. > > There are two different things: > - having reply-to set > - having reply-to munged > > The former happens by the user. The latter is changed by the mailing > list. The right thing to do for commits@ is to have the *bot itself* > set "reply-to" to the list and for the list to do nothing. > > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 13:19, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > A message intended for the list that > > is sent privately, or one intended to be private that is sent to a public > > list?] > > Not exactly. In the broken case, public messages also run the risk of > getting ignored. This is because replies don't go to the user and thus > look like ordinary messages. As an example: I get an average of 200 > messages per day from public mailing lists. Unless a message is marked > as "to me" or "I participated" it is much more likely to be missed. > > The tradeoffs are: > > Non-broken Pros: > - Doesn't break the expectation of "reply" vs "reply all" > - Private messages are not likely to go a public mailing list > - No need to manually add people to CC > - Messages are less likely to be lost to the author > - Following internet standards IMHO, that should be the primary reference... > - Similar to other open source projects And this too. Gilles > Cons: > - Its possible to accidentally sent a private reply which will need to > be redirected to the mailing list. > > > Broken Pros: > - It takes slightly more work to send a private reply which will need > to be redirected to the mailing list. > > > > -- > Eitan Adler > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
