> On 7 May 2014, at 11:59 pm, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: > > Peter Shute writes: > >> Thanks, I understand now. If the result of this is that replies go >> to everyone on the list, this is something we don't want for our >> list. Private replies becoming public means trouble, and we have >> enough of it already when people Reply All by accident. > > In that case, in Mailman 2.1.18-1, you probably get the best of all > worlds by setting > > 'from_is_list' to 'Munge From' > > which puts the list in "From", deleting any other addresses from > "From" (thus disabling DMARC), and then puts the poster in "Reply-To", > > 'reply_to_list' to 'Poster' > > which leaves the "Reply-To" header as it finds it. Finally, set > > 'personalize' to 'Full Personalization' > > which puts the recipient in "To". The first two are on the General > Options page, the last on the Nondigest Options page. > > The rules for these options are complicated, but if I've thought > correctly about this, in most cases the header of the post as > distributed to subscribers will say > > To: each-subscriber@home > From: the-list@your-org > Reply-To: the-poster@home > > Although "the-list" is *visible* in "From", conforming mail clients > will *not* pay attention to it (the "rules" say Reply-To takes > precedence over From as the author's address), and even a Reply All > will produce a message addressed as > > To: the-poster@home > From: each-subscriber@home > > In order to also CC the list, the replying subscriber would have to > deliberately copy/paste the list address into "To", "Cc", or "Bcc". > This depends on the replying subscriber's mail program, so there are > no guarantees, but it seems very unlikely to me that any of your > subscribers will inadvertantly CC the list with that configuration.
This fixes the accidental private reply to the list problem, but makes it hard to reply to the list, which is what our members normally want to do. The list would probably stop functioning for lack of public discussion. Am I correct in believing that there is now an option to have these modified behaviours only apply to messages from p=reject senders? Maybe that's a decent compromise, as the rest of the messages can be treated normally, and the p=reject senders will be punished for not getting new addresses by not having their questions discussed by the whole group. So long as gmail and hotmail don't start doing it too, as then a majority of our members will be affected (and will consider they have nowhere left to go). So does this mean that any solution is going to be a choice between ease of replying to the list and ease of accidental replying to the list? Peter Shute ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
