On Wed, 17 Apr 2013, Jed Brown wrote: > Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> writes: > > > This benefit is a bit dubious - as you'll get some migration of > > petsc-maint traffic to petsc-users - but then you loose all the > > 'reply-to-individual' emails from the archives [yeah - reply-to-reply > > emails with cc:list added get archived - perhaps with broken threads]. > > Thus the canned response: "Please resend your last message with all Cc's > intact so that I can reply to it on the list." > > Having a consistent convention between petsc-users/petsc-dev and > petsc-maint would be fine by me [1]. > > > And then there is spam - which you say can be dealt with filters. Is > > this client side or server side? > > Preserving unmunged headers makes existing spam filters more accurate. > For example, petsc-maint is considered to be an important address in my > mails, making it less likely to label mail setting "Reply-to: > petsc-maint" as spam. This is one of many criteria and I don't know how > significant it is, but anecdotally, petsc-maint spam is almost never > detected by gmail's spam filter, while git at vger.kernel.org spam is > usually detected.
So it is a client side filtering. Curently there is no spam on the mailing lists - as it goes in for moderator approval. If we switch everyone will get spam - and users filters would have to take care of things. I guess gmail does it one way - but not everyone is on gmail. And then - if gmail spam fails because of "Reply-to: petsc-maint" - then thats a useless spam filter. RT doesn't have to set that field. Any spamer can do that trivially. > And header munging could be turned off without enabling anonymous > posting. yes thats possible. With that - we'll be trading off 'enabling users to subscribe-without-delivery' [who can easily use filters to prevent mailing list traffic flooding their mailbox] - at the cost of everyone remembering to 'reply-all' all the time. > Maybe we can provide a one-click subscribe-without-delivery? I don't know. Will have to check with systems. For one - there are quiet a few posts to petsc-users without subscribing first. These mails go into moderation. I approve/subscribe the post so that they get the replies - and participate in the followup emails. I still don't see the benefits of changing the mailing lists [except for it being similar to git at vger.kernel.org, and sure - less time spent moderating]. The current situation isn't perfect. But changing appears to just switch one set of issues with others.. Satish > > > [1] petsc-maint could become a mailing list with private delivery, but > anonymous posting, fixing minor annoyances like RT delivering mails > a second time to original recipients, and setting Message-ID > matching In-Reply-To. >
