On Thu, 19 Jul 2012, Barry Smith wrote: > > I think the primary issue is folks doing 'reply' instead of > > 'reply-all'. [so a mechaism that adds a reply-to:petsc-maint] would > > suffice such use case. > > > > Any other bypass mechanisms are not worth dealing with. > > So say you. > > Users intentionally make sure that they are sending a personal message to > one of the developers thinking they will get more attention! Call me > paranoid but this is the truth, it does not happen through inadvertent wrong > kind of reply buttons.
If this is what a user wants to do - he/she can always grab your e-mail id by other means [other than what is available in the current e-mail header] - and send a reply to you directly. Hence its not worth dealing with. The primary case is: user using 'reply' instead of 'reply-all'. [for this case I use reply-to: petsc-maint' from my client] The secon case is: user sending e-mail to individual developer instead of petsc-maint. For this case - I bounce such e-mails to petsc-maint before replying to them. The third case wher the 'reply-to: petsc-maint' is set - but the user changes the adress to individual developer is not worth dealing with with automatically. [we deal with it manually by reminding the user] Satish
