Justin Bailey wrote:
When I joined the haskell-cafe mailing list, I was surprised to see
the "reply-to" header on each message was set to the sender of a given
message to the list, rather than the list itself. That seemed counter
to other mailing lists I had been subscribed to, but I didn't think
too much about it.
In addition to agreeing with the article "Reply-To" Munging Considered
Harmful, I want to remark that:
A. This mailing list does not set the "Reply-To" header whatsoever. Not
even to the author. When you hit "reply", the destination is taken from
"From", not "Reply-To". Thus
I was surprised to see
the "reply-to" header on each message was set to the sender
was inaccurate.
B. This mailing list sets the "List-Post" header:
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
Progressive mail clients honour this, e.g., Evolution. Thus you are
given three buttons:
reply -> "Reply-To" or "From"
reply all -> all found addresses
reply to list -> "List-Post"
In my opinion this is the way to go. The semantics of "List-Post" is
clear cut. The semantics of "Reply-To" is too overloaded to be relied on.
I don't use Evolution - I am still at Thunderbird 1.5. It doesn't know
the "List-Post" header. (But there may be plugins to add it.) But I do
the little extra manual work of: reply all, then take out the author's
address and just keep the list address. On the other hand, I completely
don't mind receiving duplicates.
In my opinion, if I choose to use dumb software, I should be the one
making up for it, not ask the whole world to fudge semantics to please
my dumb software. Lowest common denominators are evil.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
