Sven Anderson writes: > All my proposal is about, is bringing the reply-to-munging closer to the > RFC _and_ usability than it is now.
Well, there is a difference of opinion about this, but my opinion is that Reply-To munging is absolutely broken vis-a-vis the RFC: it's an originator header, and unless the mailing list can claim to be the author (eg, announce list or digest), the mailing list should never touch it. Whether you can get an effective reply-to-all is a separate question. > Reply-to-munging _is_ heavily used in existing Mailman > installations. Why not fix it then? Even the reply-to -> cc proposal isn't a fix, at least in the sense above. And whether it makes things more usable, especially for the maintainers and list admins, is an open question, until it's tried in practice. Among other things, the behavior becomes more complicated, varying across lists. Consider our disagreement about whether Mailman removes subscribed addresses from the CC, the ease of confusing the no-dupes option with not-metoo, and the frequent confusion between Mailman's no-dupes and Gmail's behavior with respect to reflection of own posts by mailing lists. There's such a thing as being too smart for your own good, and I think it's very easy to cross that line here. _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
