On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Misha Aizatulin wrote:
Matthias Fischmann wrote:
Some lists have the Reply-To: set to the list address. I think you
can even configure the From: to be haskell-cafe instead of the poster,
making the poster merely identifiable by the Sender: field.
Do you have strong opinions on this subject?
Here is an argument against Reply-To munging. I'd say I agree with it:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
* It violates the principle of minimal munging.
This is a valid point. It may, though, possibly be a small price to pay
nowadays.
* It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer.
I disagree. I find it annoying to no end to either
1) get multiple copies of mails concerning discussions I participate in or
2) have to manually re-edit the header each and every time I want to keep
a discussion on a mailing list, possibly with added trouble finding the
right adress to send to
For mailing lists which have the characteristics that most replies are
meant for the list, munging is a much more comfortable way to deal with
things than non-munging.
* It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will direct
a response.
Not much. And it reduces the amount of surprise. We have by now left the
time when most lists where built as huge To/CC-lists (or at least most
people have left those times), and the Reply-to-all simply is not the
expected behaviour to reply to a list with one single adress.
* It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable
mailer.
I don't agree.
* It removes important information, which can make it impossible to
get back to the message sender.
This is again a valid point.
* It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to coddle
those running brain-dead software.
I don't agree. I view pine as something that should be classified as
reasonable, and I feel penalized by non-munging.
* It violates the principle of least work because complicates the
procedure for replying to messages.
I don't agree.
* It violates the principle of least surprise because it changes the
way a mailer works.
I don't agree.
* It violates the principle of least damage, and it encourages a
failure mode that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse.
I'd be surprised if private mail leakage happens that much to
Haskell-cafe, or for that matter if it'd be embarrassing to the point the
author is talking about.
* Your subscribers don't want you to do it. Or, at least the ones who
have bothered to read the docs for their mailer don't want you to do it.
I'm a subscriber. I'd prefer munging.
Cheers,
Misha
Best,
--
Mikael Johansson | To see the world in a grain of sand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | And heaven in a wild flower
http://www.mikael.johanssons.org | To hold infinity in the palm of your hand
| And eternity for an hour
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
