Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Jordan Brown]

[ This was getting pretty long and a bit repetitive, so I trimmed it
brutally.  It's still pretty long, sigh. ]

On 2/6/2018 2:09 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>  > But:  in my work contexts, it is quite common for a discussion to span
>  > two teams.  Again, a "reply" that goes to the List-Post address (versus
>  > All) won't do the right thing.  Normal "Reply All" does the right
>  > thing.
>
> OK.  I'm assuming that each team has its own list, only one List-Post
> is present, so you need Reply-All even for list posts, right?

Our mailing list software doesn't add List-Post, so yes, no other
variation does anything like the right thing.

For discussion purposes, I'm assuming that you would consider that to be
a misconfigured mailing list, and so I'm discussing how things would
work if it *did* include List-Post.  I shudder to imagine a world where
both kinds of mailing lists (with and without List-Post) are considered
correct, and you'd have to know which kind of mailing list each was to
know how your Reply button would work.

>  > Normal "Reply" does the right thing (assuming non-munged
>  > Reply-To).
>
> Reply-To munging is precisely the issue this is intended to address.
> Munged lists *have* caught me (although actually sending a message
> misaddressed to list is extremely rare).  I think the difference is
> that when I use "smart reply" I have implicitly requested that it go
> to the list.  If I really want to reply to author (which is not that
> rare), I do use Reply-Author, and find it natural.  (I'm not saying
> you would.)

I think I might finally understand some of the disconnect.

When you say "smart reply", what I hear is that it's a replacement for
the Reply button.  If it's a replacement for the Reply button, the
button you use to reply just to the author in all *other* contexts, then
it will naturally lead you into sending your private message to the world.

But it seems that you're really intending it as a replacement for the
Reply All button, a multicast reply that tries to figure out what the
exactly right address is to reply to.

Do you just never have three-way conversations with specific people?  Or
do you have to mentally split replies into three kinds:  just back to
the author, to a mailing list, or to an ad-hoc group?

My mental rule is really simple:  if I want to reply to the author, I
hit Reply; if I want to reply to everybody in the conversation I hit
Reply All.  Every once in a while I need to spin off a subset or add
somebody, and then I do one of the above and edit the list.

Do you have all three buttons (Reply, Smart-Reply, Reply-All)?

If you have a message from Joe, To you, CC Sam, and you want to reply to
both Joe and Sam, what button do you use?  If you just want to reply to
Joe, what button do you use?

>  > than Reply or Reply All, as appropriate.  (If you're interested, I'll
>  > see if I can do an analysis of my message traffic to see how often it
>  > would do something that I would consider to be clearly wrong and how
>  > often it would be an improvement.)
>
> I would be interested in that.  I expect that you'll find a pretty
> high ratio of wrong to right.  But if it came out anywhere near even,
> it would be a pretty strong indication in favor of writing an RFC.  I
> don't expect that to be enough to interest you in changing (there
> would be muscle memory costs, etc).
>
> I would appreciate it if you would *not* count "omitting the author of
> a list post from the reply" as "wrong" for this purpose because I don't
> think my target audience for "smart reply" would count it as wrong.

I'll see what I can do.  The hard part will be determining whether
people on the To/CC list are on the mailing list.
[ After an experiment... ] Yeah, the SMTP server doesn't implement EXPN,
making that hard to automate.  Still, I'll see what I can do by hand.

>  > One might say that different behaviors are appropriate for
>  > different fora, and that wouldn't be totally wrong, but remembering
>  > that different fora will behave differently requires effort, and
>  > since Reply/Reply-All do the right thing in *every* fora, why would
>  > I want to spend that effort (and take the risk of mixing it up)?
>
> Well, I did it because I'm (intermittently) on a crusade to eliminate
> Reply-To munging.  (Just so you know there is *some* method to this
> madness.)  I realize that's a very specialized motivation. ;-)

Oh, I'm on a crusade to eliminate Reply-To munging too.  I'm just
nervous about doing it by pushing a UI idiom that has a very similar
effect, especially spinning it as the "does what you really want" answer.

> I also disagree that Reply-All does the right thing in the subscribe-
> to-post discussion lists I participate in.  Sure, I can go back and
> edit out all but the person I'm replying to, but even I don't always
> do that, and most people *never* do.  YMMV, of course.

And the harm is that people get duplicate copies of messages in threads
they've participated in. 

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Jordan Brown writes:
 > On 2/5/2018 12:29 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > [various stuff, citation line preserved to make a point below]

 > You don't mention what your "smart reply" does with To and CC
 > addresses.  Discards them, I assume?

Yes.  It's intended to do what a certain large group of naive users
expect "Reply" to do.  "Smart Reply" is not intended to do what "Reply
All" does, period.  It is intended to provide a variant on what
"Reply" does that automatically handles the common case (on the
Internet at large) of discussion lists where all participants are
subscribers.  It always picks an unique reply address (except in some
rare cases where From or Reply-To contains multiple addresses).

 > But:  in my work contexts, it is quite common for a discussion to span
 > two teams.  Again, a "reply" that goes to the List-Post address (versus
 > All) won't do the right thing.  Normal "Reply All" does the right
 > thing.

OK.  I'm assuming that each team has its own list, only one List-Post
is present, so you need Reply-All even for list posts, right?  I
almost never need to reply to such posts, and when I do, it's
invariably only to the list I received it from.  If reply-both is a
frequent use case on your lists, I can see how smart reply would
almost never DTRT for you.

 > But:  Even in a mailing list context, I think that "To:  CC:
 > " conveys useful context; I'm replying to what *you* said, and
 > including everybody else in the audience.  Reply All does the right
 > thing.  (Yes, it's suboptimal in that the To/CC list tends to accumulate
 > people over time [...].)

I find the suboptimality aspect more important, and determine who was
replied to more from the citation line than the addressee list.  YMMV,
of course.

As for "knowing who's on the list", almost all of the lists I'm on
require membership to post, including "private" lists (address books
do get pwned), and deliberate addition of 3rd parties is *extremely*
rare, except for certain announcements.  But in that announcement
use-case, for me Reply-Author is the only mode I ever use.

 > I do *not* want my "Er, did you really mean to say  mistake>" note to go to the entire audience.

This turns out not to be a problem for me.  Smart reply has never
tricked me into addressing a private reply to the list (let alone
actually sending one).  I suspect it's unlikely to catch my main
audience for the feature very often -- and much less often than
Reply-To munging does.  But to find out I need to get it into a mass
MUA as default. :-/

 > Normal "Reply" does the right thing (assuming non-munged
 > Reply-To).

Reply-To munging is precisely the issue this is intended to address.
Munged lists *have* caught me (although actually sending a message
misaddressed to list is extremely rare).  I think the difference is
that when I use "smart reply" I have implicitly requested that it go
to the list.  If I really want to reply to author (which is not that
rare), I do use Reply-Author, and find it natural.  (I'm not saying
you would.)

 > than Reply or Reply All, as appropriate.  (If you're interested, I'll
 > see if I can do an analysis of my message traffic to see how often it
 > would do something that I would consider to be clearly wrong and how
 > often it would be an improvement.)

I would be interested in that.  I expect that you'll find a pretty
high ratio of wrong to right.  But if it came out anywhere near even,
it would be a pretty strong indication in favor of writing an RFC.  I
don't expect that to be enough to interest you in changing (there
would be muscle memory costs, etc).

I would appreciate it if you would *not* count "omitting the author of
a list post from the reply" as "wrong" for this purpose because I don't
think my target audience for "smart reply" would count it as wrong.

 > On what might be a side note, I think there might be a key
 > difference in attitude between different camps.  One side wants to
 > keep discussion on the mailing list when possible;

This feature is definitely aimed at that camp.  I'm not interested in
discussing whether encouraging them is a bad thing in this thread.  If
you want to talk about that (it does matter to me, it's just a
separate discussion), let's start a new thread or we can go offline.

 > It is of course completely deterministic.  But note that I said
 > "unless you pay careful attention to how you got this particular
 > copy of the message".

I disagree with that.  In your case, where you apparently get a lot of
cross-posts, yes, you'd need to pay attention.  But I think you'd
figure it out quickly because AIUI you'd normally be on your team's
list but not the other.  Your operational problem wouldn't be figuring
out which list delivered it, but simply that you frequently need to
respond to both, and the list you're not on would be omitted unless
you Reply-All.  Am I missing something?  "Smart reply" is simply not
designed to be useful in such cases.

However, in many cases, such as the 

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Jordan Brown]

On 2/5/2018 12:29 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> The question I asked, which you misinterpreted completely IMO, and
> Grant partially agreed with is "Does an algorithm which 1. gives
> overriding precedence to Reply-To, 2. otherwise if List-Post is
> present directs it there, and 3. finally falls back to From, seem
> likely to DTRT most of the time?"
You don't mention what your "smart reply" does with To and CC
addresses.  Discards them, I assume?

I suppose it depends on what "most of the time" means, and how often
cross-posting happens, and how often messages to mailing lists include
non-members.

Indeed, most of the time I want to continue the conversation in the same
fora that it's happening in.

But:  in my work contexts, it is quite common for somebody to address a
question to a different team, a team that they are not a member of.  A
"reply" that goes to the List-Post address (versus All) won't do the
right thing, because it won't include the original author.  Normal
"Reply All" does the right thing.

But:  in my work contexts, it is quite common for a discussion to span
two teams.  Again, a "reply" that goes to the List-Post address (versus
All) won't do the right thing.  Normal "Reply All" does the right thing.

But:  It's quite common for a discussion to be between an ad-hoc group
of people on the To/CC lines.  A "reply" that doesn't include To and CC
doesn't do the right thing.  Normal "Reply All" does the right thing.

But:  Even in a mailing list context, I think that "To:  CC:
" conveys useful context; I'm replying to what *you* said, and
including everybody else in the audience.  Reply All does the right
thing.  (Yes, it's suboptimal in that the To/CC list tends to accumulate
people over time, but the MUA can't get that right because it doesn't
know who is on the mailing list, ref points above.)

And, finally, it isn't uncommon (probably 5% < x < 20%) for me to want
to reply privately, perhaps to criticize, perhaps to try to resolve a
private disagreement, or perhaps simply to pursue a side thread that
isn't of general interest.  Again, a "reply" that goes to List-Post
(versus From) won't do the right thing and may lead to significant
embarrassment, a risk that in my experience outweighs any possible
advantage.  I do *not* want my "Er, did you really mean to say " note to go to the entire audience.  Normal "Reply" does the
right thing (assuming non-munged Reply-To).

So, net, there are many cases where "smart reply" doesn't do what I
think is the right thing, and none where I think it's appreciably better
than Reply or Reply All, as appropriate.  (If you're interested, I'll
see if I can do an analysis of my message traffic to see how often it
would do something that I would consider to be clearly wrong and how
often it would be an improvement.)


On what might be a side note, I think there might be a key difference in
attitude between different camps.  One side wants to keep discussion on
the mailing list when possible; another wants to keep discussion *off*
the mailing list if it isn't of more or less general interest.  There is
nothing quite so annoying, for instance, as a "me too" flood.  95% of my
e-mail is work, so every message costs the company money, times the
number of people who have to pay at least enough attention to it to
delete it.  Ten seconds to scan a message, times a thousand people at
$50 to $100 or more per hour, is $140 to $280 or more per message.


>  > So for the general case where you might have gotten a message
>  > directly, and through list A, and through list B, the result is
>  > random unless you pay careful attention to how you got this
>  > particular copy of the message.
>
> Yes and no (I partly disagree with Mark here).  It's definitely
> deterministic, and *not* random, but to users it may seem arbitrary.

It is of course completely deterministic.  But note that I said "unless
you pay careful attention to how you got this particular copy of the
message".

>  > I wouldn't use your "smart reply" button, because I think it does the
>  > wrong thing for mailing lists,
>
> I don't understand why you think that.  So far you have consistently
> responded to this thread on-list AFAICS, and everybody in this thread
> got here by reading it on the mailing list (all first responded to a
> mailing list post, not to one where they were personally addressed).

You don't know about the private conversations :-)

I did have a side conversation with Grant about exactly how I manage my
e-mail addresses (distinct "From" addresses for each mailing list and
each business I deal with).  There were a couple of side comments to Mark.

You also suppose that this style of mailing list dominates my mailing
list usage... it doesn't.  It's easily beaten by my Boy Scout e-mail,
which often goes to both the "parents" and the "Scouts" lists, and at
the moment (for stupid hosting reasons and because of a mailing list
manager with ... suboptimal ... header handling) it's usually going 

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users writes:

 > Just because an MUA isn't on the Internet, does not mean that it 
 > shouldn't play by the same or very similar rules.

If it doesn't DWIM, I don't use it.  But that's not the same as
talking about conformance of clients.  The question is whether the MUA
*as used by a particular user* usually produces messages that when
interpreted according to the RFCs do what that user expects.  For
example, you could label the reply-author function "Launch Missiles"
and the reply-all function "Buy anti-Trump ad on Breitbart", which
hardly matches the idea of "conformant MUA", but once muscle memory
kicks in it would produce conformant messages that DTRT. :-)

 > I would go so far as to say that this is likely something that
 > should be a user definable configuration.  Which means that MUAs
 > should understand multiple operations and let the end user decide
 > what they want to do.

Sure, WFM.  But in practice the problematic users (remember, this is
inspired as an anti-Reply-To-munging proposal!) do not make decisions
and reconfigure their software; they bitch and moan and expect
everybody else to change.

 > > Where is List-Post a conformance issue?  You add it if you want
 > > to inform people and MUAs where to post, and you don't if you
 > > don't.
 > 
 > I don't think me adding the List-Post header to a message going into a 
 > mailing list will work out very well.

That would be non-conformant to the RFC.  List-* headers should only
be added by list managers (typically software).

 > - I expect that the MLM would munge it (if configured to add the
 >   List-Post header itself)

That's what a conformant MLM would do, yes.

 >   or remove it.

That doesn't work for me.  I have a couple of cases where I have an
umbrella list with dependent lists that are convenient for membership
management (students who get moved by class to alumni lists, see
reply to Jordan for details).  In those cases I want the umbrella
list's List-Post passed through to the dependent lists' distribution.

 > I still believe that user are the root cause of much angst.

Reply-To munging being the salient case.

 > I was saying that I think it's wrong for us to make assumptions
 > about what other people do, and to further turn those assumptions
 > into belief that they will do what we think.

I don't agree with that as a categorical statement.  Of course we
shouldn't just "assume", but rather base it on data of various kinds.
I think there are many cases where we can be sure enough what people
will do that it's worth betting the default setting on it.

 > UI/UX design can help with some, if not many, things.  But the
 > users have to have a fundamental understanding of what they are
 > doing.

Again, I disgree with your wording, at least.  UI/UX design helps if
and only if the designers have a fundamental understanding of what the
users think they are doing.  I think the Thunderbird mistake was to
think that what the users think they're doing is what the developers
think they should be doing.  And that's not the case.  We All Hate
Reply-To Munging, but some users like it.  The idea behind this
proposal is that they don't like munging for its own sake, but because
it allows them to delegate the decision about where to address a reply
to the MUA in a natural way ("natural" according to them).

 > Users may not be willing to design their own UI, but many do choose
 > the UI that they use.  Thus, there is choice involved.

Sure, but in many cases that choice is not informed.  They use what's
there, without understanding, and if the results aren't what they
expect, they want somebody else to fix it.  They don't realize that
they have alternatives that would work better for them, and they
typically are quite unwilling to change to a better UI when they're
told about one (unwilling for good reasons as well as bad ones).

 > > I believe that if this algorithm were used in all major MUAs,
 > > there would be no demand for Reply-To munging.
 > 
 > Maybe, maybe not.

That's not helpful.  I've explained why I think this would work out
well: users who like Reply-To munging like it because they have a
one-button solution to most of their reply-addressing needs.  They
want replies to personal mail to go to author, and replies to list
posts to go to the list.  My proposed algorithm does that (if the list
doesn't munge but does supply List-Post).  It also provides familiar
behavior with Reply-To munging, unlike the Thunderbird mod.  For this
group of users, I believe it could be substituted for the reply-author
function, and they would think it "works better" (because it works as
*they* expect for non-munging lists).  (For you and Jordan, feel free
to change that UI gesture back to reply-author.)

Under what circumstances would this fail for those people?  Do you
have evidence that they actually are rare, and that the demand for
Reply-To munging is based on a different psychology?  Are you really
sure "smart reply" 

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Jordan Brown writes:

 > If you have "smart reply" as a separate function, yes.  If you have
 > the typical "Reply" and "Reply All", and the mailing list software
 > sets "Reply-To: ", then replying to the author is awkward and
 > error-prone.

Sure, but in this thread we all agree that Reply-To munging is
problematic.  I believe that the widespread availability of "smart
reply" would greatly reduce the incentives for lists to munge.  It
doesn't eliminate the need for reply-author and reply-all, but in my
experience it reduces them dramatically, and basically eliminates the
need for reply-list.

The question I asked, which you misinterpreted completely IMO, and
Grant partially agreed with is "Does an algorithm which 1. gives
overriding precedence to Reply-To, 2. otherwise if List-Post is
present directs it there, and 3. finally falls back to From, seem
likely to DTRT most of the time?"  I know from analyzing my own posts
that for me the answer is yes, and from experience I know that I'm
reasonably good at flexibly using different reply functions to meet
the needs of the moment even though I spend a lot of time using just
one function.

I also think that the evidence is pretty strong that the Reply-To
mungers would like this functionality.  To them, it would seem like
their MUA DTRTs even for non-munging lists.

 > RFC-compliant MUAs

... don't exist.  RFCs about mail do not apply to MUAs, they apply to
the interpretation of the messages.  An MUA can do anything it wants
to.  It's up to the user to decide whether they like the results or
not.  But the user is ultimately responsible for conformance, not the
MUA.

It's true that if a message composed by a borked MUA (eg Thunderbird
in some of its recent incarnations, or whatever the MUA is that
encourages people to add unneeded Reply-Tos) is interpreted according
to RFC 5322 et al, the result is often surprising to the user.  But
you shouldn't assume that proposed features are going to be added in a
borked way.  (Statistically, of course, some *will* be borked on
introduction.  That just means we need to be ready to fix them!)

Here my main question is whether for *many* users "smart reply" would
"DTRT" enough to streamline their UI and reduce mistaken addressing.
It should be an additional option, not replacing any of the now-
traditional features (reply to author, reply to all, reply to list).
(However, in my experience it completely replaces reply to list.)  If
it's not close enough to what a large number of users want to be the
recommended binding for the "obvious" gestures for "generic" reply, I
don't think the additional variety (complexity) in UI configuration is
worth it.

 > So for the general case where you might have gotten a message
 > directly, and through list A, and through list B, the result is
 > random unless you pay careful attention to how you got this
 > particular copy of the message.

Yes and no (I partly disagree with Mark here).  It's definitely
deterministic, and *not* random, but to users it may seem arbitrary.
This can be mitigated in many cases by list owner coordination and
subscriber setup.  So, for example, a subscriber who sorts different
lists' traffic into different folders is likely to be aware which list
it will go to (the List-Id and List-Post fields will be consistent
throughout that folder).  If it's a group of related lists with
different topics (such as mailman3-users, mailman-users, and
mailman-developers) there's likely to be strong social strictures
against cross-posting.  And with hierarchical structure, the owners
can set things up to DTRT.  Examples:

Announce list: does not set List-Post
Users list: does set List-Post (cross-posting discouraged)
Dev list: does set List-Post (cross-posting discouraged)

The announce list being gated to users and devs respectively
"obviously" should only get posts from approved sources.  This DTRTs.

Advisees: does not set List-Post
Undergrads: does set List-Post (cross-posting discouraged)
Grads: does set List-Post (cross-posting discouraged)
Graduates 2018: does not set List-Post
Graduates 2019: does not set List-Post
Graduates 2020: does not set List-Post

The "all my advisees" list functions as an announce list (when I'm out
of town, all-hands meetings and university deadlines announcements,
etc).  The undergrads and grads are socially distinct and occasionally
have discussions among themselves.  Rarely the 1st, 2d, 3d year grad
students have discussions specific to that year, but mostly discussion
relates to seminar presentations and general research methods, so it's
not that inconvenient to have no List-Post for individual classes.
It's not perfect DWIM, but it's pretty close.  I don't often see this
as being a problem, and lists that set Reply-To would surely make it
worse.

So overall, I don't see this as likely to be a big problem in practice.

 > It sounds like neither of us want the list to set "Reply-To:
 > ".

I think that's 

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Dimitri Maziuk writes:

 > Does it ave the same Message-ID though?

According to RFC, Message-ID is an originator field, and MUST be
present and MUST be unique.  The MUA or submission agent should add it
before handing off to the MTA.  As a last resort the MTA may add it.
If it gets past the MTA without it, it's non-conforming.  Mediator
software (such as mailing list managers) MAY add a Resent-Message-ID
field, which is not restricted in number.

In some cases it makes sense for a Mediator such as Mailman to change
the Message-ID, and it will always add one if not present.  Mark is
authoritative on when Mailman does it.  However, normally Mailman (and
other mailing list managers) will not change it, indicating that the
list considers the outgoing message to be the same from the author's
point of view as the incoming message.

Of course this is a judgment call.  Obviously *some* changes such as
adding Received fields to the header don't change "the message".  On
the other hand, I think it's reasonable for authors to claim that
mailing lists that go stripping attachments or HTML parts, or
translating text/html to text/plain, as Mailman can be configured to
do, have edited the message enough that it's a new message.  Stuff in
the middle (list tags and serial numbers in Subject, headers and
footers on the body) I would *never* consider to make a new message,
but some people claim they think so.

I don't recall ever seeing such a complaint from authors, even from
people who want the HTML preserved.  Authors don't question that it's
the same message, they just want the presentation preserved.  The
people who do question it generally do it in service of claims that
the mailing list "owns" the message so Reply-To munging is
RFC-conforming, etc.

The RFCs punt on "when is it a new message" in exactly the same way,
by the way.  "It's your call, just be sure to change the Message-ID if
you think it's a new message now."
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Dimitri Maziuk writes:
 > On 2018-01-29 23:51, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > 
 > ... [ Reply-To ] should have a checkbox "same as my
 > >  From address."
 > 
 > Oh, great, now I'll rreecceeiivvee eevveerryytthhiinngg
 > ttwwiiccee..

No, that's not the way Reply-To works.

Anyway, the point is that Reply-To would *not* be set in that case,
because the RFC says that replies should go to From by default.  It
would simply be a UI trick to allow less sophisticated users to do the
obviously correct thing, which also involves less typing or copying/
pasting.  Thus avoiding the attractive nuisance described in the OP.
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Sebastian Hagedorn]

--On 30. Januar 2018 um 13:33:35 -0700 Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users 
 wrote:



On 01/26/2018 09:41 PM, Jordan Brown wrote:

I was suggesting that one way to address that complaint would be for
your mail client to detect the duplication and hide the duplicate copies.


That sounds good in theory.  But the practice that I'm exposed to doesn't
work out well.

I usually receive the direct replies before the copy from the mailing
list.  With the copy coming in from the mailing list after the message
directly to me is processed, there is little chance of retroactively
removing the original copy.  At least from procmail filters.  I'm also
not aware of much that Thunderbird can do.


Cyrus IMAP does duplicate suppression by default, so I never see more than 
one copy. I usually send replies to both author and list, because you never 
know how long the mail will take over the list, and with a modern server 
duplicates are a non-issue.

--
   .:.Sebastian Hagedorn - Weyertal 121 (Gebäude 133), Zimmer 2.02.:.
.:.Regionales Rechenzentrum (RRZK).:.
  .:.Universität zu Köln / Cologne University - ✆ +49-221-470-89578.:.
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Sebastian Hagedorn]

--On 30. Januar 2018 um 12:46:20 -0700 Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users 
 wrote:



Mutt and Gnus have had that for as long as I can remember.  But there's
always a huge constituency for a one-button do-what-I-mean function.
"It's obvious what I want, why doesn't this stupid software get it?"
I think this algorithm provides that function.


The more we discuss this and the longer that this thread goes on, makes
me think that this should be a user configurable action that the MUA
prompts the user for what they want to reply to in the ambiguous case.
Likely with some tuning and parameters to reduce the number of pop ups.


This is what Mulberry does, which is one of the many reasons I'm still 
using it even though it's de facto abandonware.

--
   .:.Sebastian Hagedorn - Weyertal 121 (Gebäude 133), Zimmer 2.02.:.
.:.Regionales Rechenzentrum (RRZK).:.
  .:.Universität zu Köln / Cologne University - ✆ +49-221-470-89578.:.
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Jordan Brown]

On 1/30/2018 6:22 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 01/30/2018 04:53 PM, Jordan Brown wrote:
>> (that is, first_strip_reply_to=No, reply_goes_to_list=This List)
>>
>> Then if user A sends a message to the list without a Reply-To, replies
>> will go to the list, but if user B sends a message to the list with
>> "Reply-To: " replies will go to user B.
>
> No.  In the User A case messages from the list will have a Reply-To with
> the list address and replies (ignoring the pathological recent
> Thunderbird) will go to the list as you say, but in the User B case,
> messages from the list will have a Reply-To with both User B's address
> and the list address and replies will go to both User B and the list.
>
> Of course, not all MUA's behave exactly the same with reply in cases
> where there are multiple addresses in Reply-To: but reasonable ones at
> least will address the reply to all the Reply-To: addresses.
>

Thanks for the correction.

(Then I don't know why people are unhappy when Reply-To == From.)


--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Mark Sapiro]

On 01/30/2018 06:46 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:
> 
> I wonder if that hints at another option when munging the From: (i.e.
> for DMARC reason).  Add the author (read: the original From:) as a
> Reply-To and set the mailing list as From:.  That would provide the
> original author information that many people want and (correctly)
> complain that From: munging hides.


The Munge From DMARC mitigations do essentially that. The message From:
Joe User  gets sent From: Joe User via Listname
 and has the original From: in either Reply-To: or
Cc: depending on some settings according to these goals.

> # MAS: We need to do some things with the original From: if we've munged
> # it for DMARC mitigation.  We have goals for this process which are
> # not completely compatible, so we do the best we can.  Our goals are:
> # 1) as long as the list is not anonymous, the original From: address
> #should be obviously exposed, i.e. not just in a header that MUAs
> #don't display.
> # 2) the original From: address should not be in a comment or display
> #name in the new From: because it is claimed that multiple domains
> #in any fields in From: are indicative of spamminess.  This means
> #it should be in Reply-To: or Cc:.
> # 3) the behavior of an MUA doing a 'reply' or 'reply all' should be
> #consistent regardless of whether or not the From: is munged.
> # Goal 3) implies sometimes the original From: should be in Reply-To:
> # and sometimes in Cc:, and even so, this goal won't be achieved in
> # all cases with all MUAs.  In cases of conflict, the above ordering of
> # goals is priority order.


-- 
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/30/2018 07:22 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
No.  In the User A case messages from the list will have a Reply-To 
with the list address and replies (ignoring the pathological recent 
Thunderbird) will go to the list as you say, but in the User B case, 
messages from the list will have a Reply-To with both User B's address 
and the list address and replies will go to both User B and the list.


Thank you for the confirmation Mark.  That's what I thought should 
happen in the B case.


Of course, not all MUA's behave exactly the same with reply in cases 
where there are multiple addresses in Reply-To: but reasonable ones at 
least will address the reply to all the Reply-To: addresses.


I wonder if that hints at another option when munging the From: (i.e. 
for DMARC reason).  Add the author (read: the original From:) as a 
Reply-To and set the mailing list as From:.  That would provide the 
original author information that many people want and (correctly) 
complain that From: munging hides.


I think you'd have to have the discussion mailing list listed in the 
From: and Reply-To: in addition to the original author (From:).




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/30/2018 05:53 PM, Jordan Brown wrote:
[ Feh.  My biggest MUA<->ML nuisance is that I don't have a way to force 
replies to use the custom From address that I use for that mailing list.


I'm assuming that you're talking about the address that address that 
direct replies go to.


My solution is to use a custom From: address (and occasionally to 
manually set the Reply-To: address) according to where I want the 
message (reply) to go to.


Yes, I use MANY different email addresses for this and similar reasons.


Grant, sorry for the dup. ]


I understand why.  I don't hold my preference against you or others.


If your Mailman is configured so:

…

(that is, first_strip_reply_to=No, reply_goes_to_list=This List)

Then if user A sends a message to the list without a Reply-To, replies 
will go to the list, but if user B sends a message to the list with 
"Reply-To: " replies will go to user B.


Okay.  I think I'm starting to see the problem that you're alluding to.

It's not so much that people set a Reply-To: in their MUA in and of 
itself.  It's the interaction of their settings in relation to MLMs 
configured like above.


I don't recall Mailman's behavior for reply_goes_to_list=This List to 
say for sure, but I would think that without first_strip_reply_to that 
Mailman would add the list as an additional Reply-To.  Thus replies 
would go to the value of Reply-To /and/ to the list.


Some people would regard it as a problem that the replies to user B 
aren't directed towards the list.


I agree for discussion lists.

As you say, setting Reply-To to the same as From should have no effect, 
but that's not the case in this configuration.  (Nor is it the case for 
Stephen's proposed "smart single reply", at the MUA end; in his proposal 
an explicit Reply-To beats List-Post beats From.)


(I would regard it as a problem that replies to user A *are* directed 
toward the list, but we're not talking about my preferences here; I'm 
just trying to explain why some people have a problem with a message 
that has Reply-To the same as From.)


ACK

Thank you for the explanation.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Mark Sapiro]

On 01/30/2018 04:53 PM, Jordan Brown wrote:
> 
> (that is, first_strip_reply_to=No, reply_goes_to_list=This List)
> 
> Then if user A sends a message to the list without a Reply-To, replies
> will go to the list, but if user B sends a message to the list with
> "Reply-To: " replies will go to user B.


No.  In the User A case messages from the list will have a Reply-To with
the list address and replies (ignoring the pathological recent
Thunderbird) will go to the list as you say, but in the User B case,
messages from the list will have a Reply-To with both User B's address
and the list address and replies will go to both User B and the list.

Of course, not all MUA's behave exactly the same with reply in cases
where there are multiple addresses in Reply-To: but reasonable ones at
least will address the reply to all the Reply-To: addresses.

-- 
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Jordan Brown]

[ Feh.  My biggest MUA<->ML nuisance is that I don't have a way to force
replies to use the custom From address that I use for that mailing
list.  Grant, sorry for the dup. ]

On 1/30/2018 3:42 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:
> On 01/30/2018 03:11 PM, Jordan Brown wrote:
>> There are those who would consider it a problem if your mailing list
>> is (mis:-)configured to add "Reply-To: " if there is no
>> existing "Reply-To".
>
> I don't see how the MLM's behavior (good / bad / indifferent) has
> anything to do with this being a problem.  Specifically that the
> sample message has the Reply-To: set to the same value as the From:.

If your Mailman is configured so:

Should any existing Reply-To: header found in the original message
be stripped? If so, this will be done regardless of whether an
explict Reply-To: header is added by Mailman or not. 
(Edit *first_strip_reply_to*)



No  Yes

Where are replies to list messages
directed? Poster is /strongly/ recommended for most mailing lists. 
(Details for *reply_goes_to_list*)



Poster  This list   Explicit address

(that is, first_strip_reply_to=No, reply_goes_to_list=This List)

Then if user A sends a message to the list without a Reply-To, replies
will go to the list, but if user B sends a message to the list with
"Reply-To: " replies will go to user B.

Some people would regard it as a problem that the replies to user B
aren't directed towards the list.

As you say, setting Reply-To to the same as From should have no effect,
but that's not the case in this configuration.  (Nor is it the case for
Stephen's proposed "smart single reply", at the MUA end; in his proposal
an explicit Reply-To beats List-Post beats From.)

(I would regard it as a problem that replies to user A *are* directed
toward the list, but we're not talking about my preferences here; I'm
just trying to explain why some people have a problem with a message
that has Reply-To the same as From.)

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/30/2018 03:11 PM, Jordan Brown wrote:
There are those who would consider it a problem if your mailing list is 
(mis:-)configured to add "Reply-To: " if there is no existing 
"Reply-To".


I don't see how the MLM's behavior (good / bad / indifferent) has 
anything to do with this being a problem.  Specifically that the sample 
message has the Reply-To: set to the same value as the From:.


   From: Grant Taylor 
   To:  Mailman-Users 
   CC:  REDACTED 
   Reply-To: Grant Taylor 
   Subject:  Testing...

Replies will be routed to the author, where replies to other messages 
will be routed to the list.


I assume that you are referring to messages coming out of the MLM, in 
comparison to messages that went directly to CC recipients and where 
their replies would go.  I.e. if REDACTED replies to the above message 
vs a mailing list subscriber replying to the message they received.


I personally would try to avoid the above scenario, particularly when a 
discussion mailing list is one of the recipients.  Or I'd like configure 
the Reply-To: to reflect the mailing list.  (Of course that has it's own 
complications and failure modes.)




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Mark Sapiro]

On 01/30/2018 02:43 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:
> On 01/30/2018 03:02 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
>> Does it ave the same Message-ID though? I suppose if I reply-both on
>> this one, you'll have an easy way to check.
> 
> Yes, they frequently do have the same Message-ID.  About the only time
> they don't is if the MLM changes the Message-ID.


Which Mailman doesn't do except for posts to anonymous lists (for
privacy reasons) and posts gated to Usenet (for reasons having to do
with potential cross-posting to multiple lists that gate to Usenet but
to different news groups.

-- 
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/30/2018 03:09 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
To answer my own question, the one I got back from the list has the same 
message id that was sent out so a t least in this particular delivery 
chain nothing mangled it.


;-)

In that case keeping a list of the N last delivered message ids and 
discarding ones already on the list shouldn't be too difficult indeed.


Nope, that's not difficult do to.

The catch is that this doesn't do what I want it to do.

The only problem then is list mail will seldom land in the list 
sub-folders as the direct replies should almost always come first and 
land in inbox.


I don't know about the /only/ problem per say, but certainly /a/ problem.

I would much rather have a spurious message in my Inbox in addition to 
the message that I want, from the mailing list, in the folder for said 
mailing list.


In this case, I need something that will identify the dup in the Inbox 
and remove it when the message arrives from the mailing list, second / 
minutes / hours later.  This simply is not conducive to typical procmail 
(like) filtering schemes.


Also remember that these two messages are not identical.  They are 
close, and the message from the list is based off of the direct message.




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/30/2018 03:02 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
Does it ave the same Message-ID though? I suppose if I reply-both on 
this one, you'll have an easy way to check.


Yes, they frequently do have the same Message-ID.  About the only time 
they don't is if the MLM changes the Message-ID.



(sending to both)


:-/

I prefer to only receive messages to the mailing list.  But I understand 
why you replied to both.  ;-)




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/30/2018 03:04 PM, Jordan Brown wrote:
Even getting agreement on what constitutes an ambiguous case might 
be tough.


Agreement between people may be problematic.

I think it will be quite simple to get people to define what they like 
and dislike.  Which will likely differ from what other people say.


It is absolutely, 100%, clear to me what I want to happen on Reply and 
Reply All.  But it seems that that is not what you want to happen...


We are all entitled to our own opinions.  ;-)



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Jordan Brown]

On 1/30/2018 2:09 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> The only problem then is list mail will seldom land in the list
> sub-folders as the direct replies should almost always come first and
> land in inbox.

That depends entirely on how you design your filters.  My Mailman filter
looks for From, To, CC, or BCC containing mailman-users@python.org.  It
could also reasonably look for Envelope-To[*] containing
mail...@jordan.maileater.net, which would also capture private
Mailman-related conversations, but I haven't had enough of those to bother.

[*] Added by my MTA on receipt.

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Dimitri Maziuk]

And PPS my maildropex(7) has

'''
Check if the Message-ID: header in the message is identical to the same
header that was recently seen. Discard the message if it is, otherwise
   continue to filter the message:

   ‘reformail -D 8000 duplicate.cache‘
   if ( $RETURNCODE == 0 )
   exit

   The reformail[1] command maintains a list of recently seen
Message-IDs in the file duplicate.cache.
'''

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Jordan Brown]

On 1/30/2018 1:33 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:
> So I'm curious how the Reply-To: being set to the same thing as the
> From: causes any problems here.

There are those who would consider it a problem if your mailing list is
(mis:-)configured to add "Reply-To: " if there is no existing
"Reply-To".  Replies will be routed to the author, where replies to
other messages will be routed to the list.


--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Dimitri Maziuk]

To answer my own question, the one I got back from the list has the same
message id that was sent out so a t least in this particular delivery
chain nothing mangled it.

In that case keeping a list of the N last delivered message ids and
discarding ones already on the list shouldn't be too difficult indeed.
The only problem then is list mail will seldom land in the list
sub-folders as the direct replies should almost always come first and
land in inbox.

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Jordan Brown]

On 1/30/2018 11:46 AM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:
> The more we discuss this and the longer that this thread goes on,
> makes me think that this should be a user configurable action that the
> MUA prompts the user for what they want to reply to in the ambiguous case.

Even getting agreement on what constitutes an ambiguous case might be tough.

50% :-)
50% :-(

It is absolutely, 100%, clear to me what I want to happen on Reply and
Reply All.  But it seems that that is not what you want to happen...

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Dimitri Maziuk]

On 01/30/2018 03:27 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:

> About the only thing that I can think to do would be to have my LDA
> deliver a copy of the post from the mailing list to a script that would
> search the Inbox for messages with the same Message-ID and then
> retroactively remove them.

Does it ave the same Message-ID though? I suppose if I reply-both on
this one, you'll have an easy way to check.

(sending to both)
-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/29/2018 10:14 AM, Chip Davis wrote:
I have a constant problem with well-meaning, but essentially ignorant, 
email users who, upon seeing a "Reply To:" field in their MUA's setup 
screen, dutifully fill it in with their email address.


I too have seen people fill in the Reply-To in the MUA setup screen.  - 
However I don't see the problem with it.


Recipients that hit reply (to a message that has not been modified) will 
go back to the author, via the From: or Reply-To:, particularly if the 
From: and Reply-To: are the same email address.


So I'm curious how the Reply-To: being set to the same thing as the 
From: causes any problems here.


Then they complain that even though they "replied to the list", their 
email went only to the poster.


It seems like you are describing two quite distinct things, 1) how the 
MUA is configured, and 2) where the replies to incoming messages go back 
out to.  IMHO the way the From: / Reply-To: are configured doesn't 
matter or impact where replies to incoming messages go.


What am I missing?



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/30/2018 01:43 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
Dep. on your MDA setup, list replies could go to list folder and off-list 
copies: to main inbox. In which case I think that thunderbird plug-in 
would not work either, even if you still have both on disk.


That's the exact scenario (save for the predictable race condition) that 
I'm dealing with.


Direct replies land in inbox b/c they don't match any filter.  The 
direct reply arrives before the copy passes through the mailing list. 
Once the copy arrives from the mailing list, it gets filed in a folder 
for the mailing list.


About the only thing that I can think to do would be to have my LDA 
deliver a copy of the post from the mailing list to a script that would 
search the Inbox for messages with the same Message-ID and then 
retroactively remove them.


I suppose I could do this, but I've not (yet) been motivated (enough) to 
do so.




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Dimitri Maziuk]

On 01/30/2018 02:33 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:

> ...  I'm also
> not aware of much that Thunderbird can do.

There is/was a plug-in for finding duplicates. It only works if you have
both, if you already deleted the off-list copy that's no different from
what you get with procmail.

Dep. on your MDA setup, list replies could go to list folder and
off-list copies: to main inbox. In which case I think that thunderbird
plug-in would not work either, even if you still have both on disk.

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/26/2018 09:41 PM, Jordan Brown wrote:
I was suggesting that one way to address that complaint would be for 
your mail client to detect the duplication and hide the duplicate copies.


That sounds good in theory.  But the practice that I'm exposed to 
doesn't work out well.


I usually receive the direct replies before the copy from the mailing 
list.  With the copy coming in from the mailing list after the message 
directly to me is processed, there is little chance of retroactively 
removing the original copy.  At least from procmail filters.  I'm also 
not aware of much that Thunderbird can do.


Hence good in theory, bad in practice.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/28/2018 09:40 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
OK.  But I'm not saying "always."  I'm saying that this would DTRT for me 
a very large proportion of the time, and for AOLers, about 100% of the 
time to 6 sigmas.


I think that's a question of corpus.  DTRT for you is different from 
DTRT for me which also likely differs from other subscribers to this list.


Others have used the word "right".  From the point of view of the 
Internet, there's no "right" off the Internet, and MUAs are off the 
Internet.


Just because an MUA isn't on the Internet, does not mean that it 
shouldn't play by the same or very similar rules.  Further, where an MUA 
is run, be it a fat local client like Thunderbird, or a think web client 
like Gmail, shouldn't change what the MUA does.


The question is desired behavior, and whether that desired behavior can 
be achieved efficiently (little information to remember, few keystrokes, 
etc) and mnemonically for a given set of users who desire that behavior.


Agreed.

In the end it's an empirical question.  Unfortunately it's hard to get 
information about the target population (it's not Mutt users!) without 
getting the algorithm into one of the big MUAs.


I would go so far as to say that this is likely something that should be 
a user definable configuration.  Which means that MUAs should understand 
multiple operations and let the end user decide what they want to do.


Mutt and Gnus have had that for as long as I can remember.  But there's 
always a huge constituency for a one-button do-what-I-mean function. 
"It's obvious what I want, why doesn't this stupid software get it?" 
I think this algorithm provides that function.


The more we discuss this and the longer that this thread goes on, makes 
me think that this should be a user configurable action that the MUA 
prompts the user for what they want to reply to in the ambiguous case. 
Likely with some tuning and parameters to reduce the number of pop ups.


Where is List-Post a conformance issue?  You add it if you want to inform 
people and MUAs where to post, and you don't if you don't.


I don't think me adding the List-Post header to a message going into a 
mailing list will work out very well.  -  I expect that the MLM would 
munge it (if configured to add the List-Post header itself) or remove it.


I'm saying we can exploit a high correlation between "availability" 
of posting to the list (the RFC semantics of List-Post) and a desire to 
direct discussion (ie, replies) to the list.


I think that it would be nice to express such a desire.  However I don't 
think the List-Post header is for that purpose.


It has been a user education issue for 40 years in my experience, though. 
At some point we need to accept that users are ineducable.


Agreed.

I still believe that user are the root cause of much angst.

I'm suggesting that there should be four functions (reply to author, 
reply to list, reply to all, and "smart" reply).  I suspect that for a 
lot of users, "smart" reply will be all they ever use.


Fair.

There are a number of people eating Tide pods too.  I can't help them 
and I'm getting tired of Darwin taking too long to help them.


Taken seriously that would mean you believe that UI/UX design is 
impossible.  You actually deny you believe that, and I can't go down 
that road.  Most users are not willing to design their own UI.


I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

I was saying that I think it's wrong for us to make assumptions about 
what other people do, and to further turn those assumptions into belief 
that they will do what we think.


UI/UX design can help with some, if not many, things.  But the users 
have to have a fundamental understanding of what they are doing.


Without said fundamental understanding, the very best UI / UX will still 
fail.


Users may not be willing to design their own UI, but many do choose the 
UI that they use.  Thus, there is choice involved.


If I thought this was just me, I wouldn't have posted.  I've been 
observing the concerns of mailing list owners for two decades, and I 
believe that if this algorithm were used in all major MUAs, there would 
be no demand for Reply-To munging.


Maybe, maybe not.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Dimitri Maziuk]

On 2018-01-29 23:51, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

... [ Reply-To ] should have a checkbox "same as my

 From address."


Oh, great, now I'll rreecceeiivvee eevveerryytthhiinngg ttwwiiccee..

Dima

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Mark Sapiro]

On 01/29/2018 11:01 PM, Jordan Brown wrote:
> 
> So for the general case where you might have gotten a message directly,
> and through list A, and through list B, the result is random unless you
> pay careful attention to how you got this particular copy of the message.


If you received the message directly, it won't have a List-Post: header
and there will be no Reply-List function. In other cases, the List-Post:
header will contain the posting address of the list from which you
received the specific instance of the message to which you're replying
and Reply-List will go to that list only.

-- 
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Jordan Brown]

On 1/29/2018 9:56 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>  > (And that's another of the key items:  the "Reply-To: "
>  > configuration makes it *difficult* to reply to the author, and that
>  > seems just plain rude.)
>
> Why?  Nobody is talking about taking away anybody's Reply-To-Author
> function, and nobody says you personally have to bind "smart reply" to
> anything in your MUA.

If you have "smart reply" as a separate function, yes.  If you have the
typical "Reply" and "Reply All", and the mailing list software sets
"Reply-To: ", then replying to the author is awkward and
error-prone.  RFC-compliant MUAs are unlikely to have a simple operation
that replies to the sender.


>  > Side question:  when you have a message addressed to multiple
>  > mailing lists, what does "reply to list" even mean?
>
> Long answer: click here -> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2369
> Short answer: List-Post may occur at most once.  It goes there.

So for the general case where you might have gotten a message directly,
and through list A, and through list B, the result is random unless you
pay careful attention to how you got this particular copy of the message.

>  > Note also that the MailMan UI says "Where are replies to list messages
>  > directed? Poster is /strongly /recommended for most mailing lists." so
>  > it's not just me.
>
> Opposing "Reply-To munging" is nowhere near advocating restricting
> reply UI to "Reply-to-Author" and "Reply-to-All", no more, no less.
> In fact, my opposition to Reply-To munging is a good part of *why* I
> think "smart reply" would be a useful addition to AOL's MUA, inter alia.

OK, so maybe we aren't so far off alignment.  We might choose different
options, but that's OK.

It sounds like neither of us want the list to set "Reply-To: ".

You want a "smart reply" button that sends to Reply-To, List-Post, or
From, in that order.  (Right?)
I want plain "reply" that sends to Reply-To or From, in that order.  (I
don't mind if it's renamed to "Reply to Author".)

I wouldn't use your "smart reply" button, because I think it does the
wrong thing for mailing lists, but if you want to do the wrong thing
with your replies, I guess that's up to you.

My only fear is that in the ongoing simplification (dumbing-down?) of
this stuff, "smart reply" will become the only option.  And, actually,
if that happens then I *have* lost the "reply to author" function.

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Jordan Brown writes:

 > make everybody happy

That's a longer way of expressing "right."  I'm *still* not interested
in that.

 > I can only hope that whatever standards develop make both "reply to
 > author" and "reply to all" convenient.

No MUA is going to remove either of those functions.

 > (And that's another of the key items:  the "Reply-To: "
 > configuration makes it *difficult* to reply to the author, and that
 > seems just plain rude.)

Why?  Nobody is talking about taking away anybody's Reply-To-Author
function, and nobody says you personally have to bind "smart reply" to
anything in your MUA.

 > Side question:  when you have a message addressed to multiple
 > mailing lists, what does "reply to list" even mean?

Long answer: click here -> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2369
Short answer: List-Post may occur at most once.  It goes there.

 > Note also that the MailMan UI says "Where are replies to list messages
 > directed? Poster is /strongly /recommended for most mailing lists." so
 > it's not just me.

Opposing "Reply-To munging" is nowhere near advocating restricting
reply UI to "Reply-to-Author" and "Reply-to-All", no more, no less.
In fact, my opposition to Reply-To munging is a good part of *why* I
think "smart reply" would be a useful addition to AOL's MUA, inter alia.

 > (I'm not sure whether T-bird can save me from a DMARC-munged list that
 > uses "Reply-To: ".  That combination just makes my head hurt.)

It made Mark's head hurt, too.  I think he did a good job of
mitigating a fundamentally broken part of the Internet, but it's
suboptimal that anybody uses p=reject on non-transactional mail flows.
(This algorithm can't do anything to help with DMARC, unfortunately.)

-- 
Associate Professor  Division of Policy and Planning Science
http://turnbull/sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/ Faculty of Systems and Information
Email: turnb...@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp   University of Tsukuba
Tel: 029-853-5175 Tennodai 1-1-1, Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Jordan Brown writes:

 > You were complaining that in some list configurations you will tend to
 > get multiple copies of a message - one directly to you, and one via the
 > list.
 > 
 > I was suggesting that one way to address that complaint would be for
 > your mail client to detect the duplication and hide the duplicate
 > copies.

One convention that was used a lot on one of the dev lists I
participated in was that explicitly addressing a senior dev meant you
needed *their* attention and *soon*.  Suppressing either would be
suboptimal (they ended up getting saved in different folders for most
of us, and especially as listmaster, *I* wanted the list copies).
(BTW, people who reply-all'd to such messages ended up in a lot lof
killfiles, everybody happy!)

 > > I'm /not/ saying where your reply /does/ go.  I'm saying where I would
 > > /like/ it to go. 
 > 
 > Mostly, I'd say that you've already said that by including the mailing
 > list in the To or CC list.  When I reply to a message with multiple
 > recipients (however those recipients might be specified), I'd say that
 > the normal convention is to include all of them in any ongoing
 > discussion by hitting Reply All.

That's "normal" mostly because, like you, most people think that a few
seconds cleaning up a reply-all list is way too much effort.  But that
habit being widespread certainly means that some people with no
interest in the conversation end up in the canoe with you, merely
because they posted to a mailing list at some point.  Many of these
same people think that almost all replies to a list post should be
directed to the list.  That combination certainly accounts for some of
the strength of support for Reply-To munging.

 > If you wanted your message to go to the mailing list but didn't
 > want replies to go there, you could have put the mailing list into
 > the BCC.

These days, you mostly can't.  BCC'd mailing lists mostly assume
you're a spammer.


-- 
Associate Professor  Division of Policy and Planning Science
http://turnbull/sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/ Faculty of Systems and Information
Email: turnb...@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp   University of Tsukuba
Tel: 029-853-5175 Tennodai 1-1-1, Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Chip Davis writes:

 > I have a constant problem with well-meaning, but essentially
 > ignorant, email users who, upon seeing a "Reply To:" field in their
 > MUA's setup screen, dutifully fill it in with their email address.
 > Then they complain that even though they "replied to the list",
 > their email went only to the poster.

I don't think I have *ever* seen this full sequence.  It may have
something to do with being unable to recall an MUA that by default
asks for Reply-To.

 > That's why I have to "first_strip_reply_to", and it appears, will 
 > still have to do so in your new paradigm, Stephen.

Yes, but you have to blame, uh, Dave Crocker and the other authors of
RFC 724 (May 1977) for that, as well as the particularly whacked MUA(s)
that these users use.

Maybe my BCP should specify that you should add an input field for
Reply-To only if the user requests it for that message. :-)  And that
if it's in the configure screen, it should have a checkbox "same as my
>From address."



-- 
Associate Professor  Division of Policy and Planning Science
http://turnbull/sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/ Faculty of Systems and Information
Email: turnb...@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp   University of Tsukuba
Tel: 029-853-5175 Tennodai 1-1-1, Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Jordan Brown]

On 1/28/2018 8:40 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> I believe that many users think
> of mailing lists as fundamentally different from personal email, and
> they would like their MUAs to distinguish automatically.  This
> algorithm, I believe, would do a pretty good job of that.


This particular user distinguishes between mail to one (human) recipient
and mail to multiple recipients, but the difference between two and a
thousand is only shades of gray, and whether some are from mailing list
expansion is mostly unimportant.  Either I want to reply to the author
alone, or to everybody, or (rarely) to some other subset.  The obvious
Reply and Reply All behaviors handle the first two, and the last is
probably best handled as Reply All followed by editing the address list.

I suspect that there will always be disagreement as to what a single
"one button reply" button should do, whether it should reply to the
author or reply to everybody.  I doubt that there will ever be a
solution, server-side or client-side, that will make everybody happy.  I
can only hope that whatever standards develop make both "reply to
author" and "reply to all" convenient.

(And that's another of the key items:  the "Reply-To: "
configuration makes it *difficult* to reply to the author, and that
seems just plain rude.)

Side question:  when you have a message addressed to multiple mailing
lists, what does "reply to list" even mean?


>  > I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the author,
>  > the list, and any other To or CC destinations.  I simply can't
>  > understand any other answer.  I don't understand why anybody feels a
>  > need for "Reply List".
>
> Your preference is noted, but you are definitely in a minority of
> those whose opinions I've seen over the decades.  Even those who use
> Reply and Reply All as you do (I do on this list, for example),
> usually have considered it suboptimal.  The preferences of list owners
> also should be respected, to the extent that replying users don't
> care.  The prevalence of reply-to-munging says that they (or perhaps a
> majority of their subscribers) want replies to automatically go to the
> list.

Lists at my company are simply never configured that way; I don't think
our e-mail system even has the option.  (And at ~140K users and
thousands of mailing lists, that's not a trivial data point.)

Note also that the MailMan UI says "Where are replies to list messages
directed? Poster is /strongly /recommended for most mailing lists." so
it's not just me.

Interesting.  I was going to say that none of the FOSS lists that I
participate in use this configuration, but it seems that a couple do and
Thunderbird's mail.override_list_reply_to is silently saving me from
their misbehavior.  Yay, T-bird!  Though, while I appreciate the fact
that the default is the way I want it, I have to reluctantly say that
it's wrong.  It should respect the Reply-To by default, no matter how
wrong it is.  But note also:  the fact that the T-bird authors chose
this behavior by default suggests that they are not members of the
"Reply-To: " community.

(I'm not sure whether T-bird can save me from a DMARC-munged list that
uses "Reply-To: ".  That combination just makes my head hurt.)


--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Chip Davis]

Apologies for mangling my description of the problem.  The senders 
with the hard-coded "Reply-To:" are not the ones complaining that 
their emails aren't going to the list, it's those who thought they 
replied to the list who complain that it went as a private message 
back to the OP.


IMHO, all replies to a discussion list posting should go back to the 
discussion by default.  Any responder is free to change that for a 
particular reply, but the default should be to maintain the discussion.


If a poster really wants private replies, the author is free to ask 
for them, and may actually get a few. (Most will still go back to the 
list because it's sooo much trouble to change the "To:" header.)


These are folks who constantly hijack threads because they always 
start a new topic by hitting 'Reply' to whatever posting they just 
received...


-Chip-

On 1/29/2018 12:14 PM, Chip Davis wrote:
I am loathe to weigh in on this architectural design discussion, but 
it seems to ignore the PEBCAK effect.


I admin about a dozen _discussion_ Mailman lists as a mitzvah for 
various organizations I'm fond of, none of which are well-populated 
with computer scientists.  Exhibit A is the number of subscribers who 
have free email accounts at Yahoo, AOL, or bellsouth.net (who 
subcontracts their email processing to Yahoo).


I have a constant problem with well-meaning, but essentially ignorant, 
email users who, upon seeing a "Reply To:" field in their MUA's setup 
screen, dutifully fill it in with their email address.  Then they 
complain that even though they "replied to the list", their email went 
only to the poster.


That's why I have to "first_strip_reply_to", and it appears, will 
still have to do so in your new paradigm, Stephen.  You can't defeat 
ignorance, only battle it to a bloody draw.


I've been doing this for years, and it seems that the proliferation of 
POS (not "point-of-sale") cellphone email clients has made things 
exponentially worse.  They are more concerned with adding a button to 
to automatically order whatever is in highlighted text from Amazon, 
than with RFC's.


-Chip-

On 1/28/2018 11:43 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

Jordan Brown writes:

  > I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the 
author,

  > the list, and any other To or CC destinations.  I simply can't
  > understand any other answer.  I don't understand why anybody 
feels a

  > need for "Reply List".

Your preference is noted, but you are definitely in a minority of
those whose opinions I've seen over the decades.  Even those who use
Reply and Reply All as you do (I do on this list, for example),
usually have considered it suboptimal.  The preferences of list owners
also should be respected, to the extent that replying users don't
care.  The prevalence of reply-to-munging says that they (or perhaps a
majority of their subscribers) want replies to automatically go to the
list.

--
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/chip%40aresti.com




--
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/chip%40aresti.com


--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Chip Davis]

I am loathe to weigh in on this architectural design discussion, but 
it seems to ignore the PEBCAK effect.


I admin about a dozen _discussion_ Mailman lists as a mitzvah for 
various organizations I'm fond of, none of which are well-populated 
with computer scientists.  Exhibit A is the number of subscribers who 
have free email accounts at Yahoo, AOL, or bellsouth.net (who 
subcontracts their email processing to Yahoo).


I have a constant problem with well-meaning, but essentially ignorant, 
email users who, upon seeing a "Reply To:" field in their MUA's setup 
screen, dutifully fill it in with their email address.  Then they 
complain that even though they "replied to the list", their email went 
only to the poster.


That's why I have to "first_strip_reply_to", and it appears, will 
still have to do so in your new paradigm, Stephen.  You can't defeat 
ignorance, only battle it to a bloody draw.


I've been doing this for years, and it seems that the proliferation of 
POS (not "point-of-sale") cellphone email clients has made things 
exponentially worse.  They are more concerned with adding a button to 
to automatically order whatever is in highlighted text from Amazon, 
than with RFC's.


-Chip-

On 1/28/2018 11:43 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

Jordan Brown writes:

  > I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the author,
  > the list, and any other To or CC destinations.  I simply can't
  > understand any other answer.  I don't understand why anybody feels a
  > need for "Reply List".

Your preference is noted, but you are definitely in a minority of
those whose opinions I've seen over the decades.  Even those who use
Reply and Reply All as you do (I do on this list, for example),
usually have considered it suboptimal.  The preferences of list owners
also should be respected, to the extent that replying users don't
care.  The prevalence of reply-to-munging says that they (or perhaps a
majority of their subscribers) want replies to automatically go to the
list.

--
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/chip%40aresti.com



--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Jordan Brown writes:

 > I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the author,
 > the list, and any other To or CC destinations.  I simply can't
 > understand any other answer.  I don't understand why anybody feels a
 > need for "Reply List".

Your preference is noted, but you are definitely in a minority of
those whose opinions I've seen over the decades.  Even those who use
Reply and Reply All as you do (I do on this list, for example),
usually have considered it suboptimal.  The preferences of list owners
also should be respected, to the extent that replying users don't
care.  The prevalence of reply-to-munging says that they (or perhaps a
majority of their subscribers) want replies to automatically go to the
list.

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users writes:
 > On 01/24/2018 01:50 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

 > > 2.  Else if there is a List-Post, address the message to List-Post.
 > 
 > I don't think that it's appropriate to always prefer the List-Post over 
 > the From ~> Reply-To.

OK.  But I'm not saying "always."  I'm saying that this would DTRT for
me a very large proportion of the time, and for AOLers, about 100% of
the time to 6 sigmas.  Others have used the word "right".  From the
point of view of the Internet, there's no "right" *off* the Internet,
and MUAs are off the Internet.  The question is *desired* behavior,
and whether that desired behavior can be achieved efficiently (little
information to remember, few keystrokes, etc) and mnemonically for a
given set of users who desire that behavior.

In the end it's an empirical question.  Unfortunately it's hard to get
information about the target population (it's not Mutt users!) without
getting the algorithm into one of the big MUAs.

 > MUAs (are starting to) have separate functions for reply to From / 
 > Reply-To vs reply to list.

Mutt and Gnus have had that for as long as I can remember.  But
there's always a huge constituency for a one-button do-what-I-mean
function.  "It's obvious what I want, why doesn't this stupid software
get it?" ;-)  I think this algorithm provides that function.

Taken out of context because I have no idea what this means:

 > the MLM adds a List-Post header to comply with other standards.

Where is List-Post a conformance issue?  You add it if you want to
inform people and MUAs where to post, and you don't if you don't.  I'm
saying we can exploit a high correlation between "availability" of
posting to the list (the RFC semantics of List-Post) and a desire to
direct discussion (ie, replies) to the list.

 > I feel like a reply to such a message [with Reply-To set] should go
 > to the Reply-To (as set by the author) and not the List-Post as set
 > by the MLM.

It does under this algorithm.  I'm not sure what you're talking about?

 > I can also see a case where a message author might choose to
 > (dynamically) set the Reply-To to something like "Reply-To: Please
 > reply to the Mailman-Users mailing list. "

Again, that's where it will go under this algorithm, absent a decision
by the replying user to use a different function.

 > I disagree for a number of reasons.  Some of which are outlined
 > above.

Some of them seem to be misunderstanding of the effect of the
algorithm, though?

 > I see an opportunity for a "List-Reply-To" header that could
 > indicate if /replies/ should go to the list (List-Post) or the
 > author (Reply-To|From).  I suppose that it could also be possible
 > to specify an alternate address for replies to go to, i.e. for
 > thread tracking or something like that.

That's another can of worms.  My older proposal had the literal
strings "author" and "list" as the options, but alternate addresses
are extremely rare in my experience.  Except in the case of
cross-posting, where I feel that (1) cross-posting is generally
extremely deprecated and doesn't happen all that much, (2)
Mail-Followup-To is widely respected even though it's not a standard
for mail, and (3) Reply-To is good enough, though not optimal.

 > This would still leave us in the situation where MUAs need to 
 > differentiate between a generic Reply and a Reply-to-List behavior. 
 > Plus the associated action for the reply keyboard sequence.

I'm not suggesting otherwise.

 > I feel like this is /mostly/ a user education issue.

It has been a user education issue for 40 years in my experience,
though.  At some point we need to accept that users are ineducable.

 > There may be some room for UI / UX improvement.  Ultimately it's up
 > to the MTA to do what the user wans done.  Consider the following:
 > 
 > From: Author 
 > To: List 
 > Reply-To: Author 
 > List-Post: List 
 > 
 > Where should replies to the author go to?  Where should replies to the 
 > list go to?  Where should the (undefined) "reply" go to?

I'm suggesting that there should be four functions (reply to author,
reply to list, reply to all, and "smart" reply).  I suspect that for a
lot of users, "smart" reply will be all they *ever* use.

This may embarrass them occasionally on some lists, but there's
nothing we can do about that.  If muscle memory for using Reply All on
list traffic is strong, you're in the same danger.  At least with
"smart reply" the list can omit List-Post (or set List-Reply-To to
author, if that ever becomes available).

 > I don't think that it's likely for the MTA to automagically know what 
 > needs to be done.

Automagically?  No.  With high probability?  I believe yes.

 > I think it is wrong for us to ascribe frequency of use for other
 > users.

Taken seriously that would mean you believe that UI/UX design is
impossible.  You actually deny 

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Jordan Brown]

On 1/24/2018 9:19 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:
> I understand your logic.  It seems reasonable enough.  I still
> disagree with it.  -  By the way the sun is purple.  ;-)  We can agree
> to disagree.

I think that's probably the end result :-)

>> And yes, those are all very real cases.  I expect that if I go
>> through my work e-mail for the last day I'll find examples of each,
>> and I would be virtually certain if I looked through a week.  (And
>> that includes the "Sam isn't a member of the mailing list" variants;
>> those are *very* common.)
>
> I don't doubt what you're saying.
>
> I do question how many of those are /discussion/ mailing lists like
> I've outlined above.

Eh.  Most of them have discussion occurring on them.  Since they are
*not* configured to set Reply-To to the list (thank goodness), I guess
you could say that by definition they are not "discussion lists", but I
think that would be kind of an unnatural definition.

> I feel sorry for Sam and think that he should subscribe to the mailing
> list.  But s/he has that option. 

Might not have the option, or want to.  He sent a question to my team
(and we might discuss the question and the answer), but that doesn't
make him a member of my team.

>> What's really needed there is a MUA that hides duplicates, though
>> that's tricky when mailing list software munges the message and the
>> headers.
> Please clarify what is duplicated that you'd like to see hidden?

You were complaining that in some list configurations you will tend to
get multiple copies of a message - one directly to you, and one via the
list.

I was suggesting that one way to address that complaint would be for
your mail client to detect the duplication and hide the duplicate copies.

> I hear and understand what you're saying.  I think that at least a
> tiny bit of responsibility is on you to check the address that the
> message is going to.  It may be 1%, or more, or less, but I do believe
> that you as a sender have a responsibility to check where you are
> sending the email to.

Maybe in theory, but that's a pretty significant mental processing load
to add to support maybe one in a thousand (if that many) replies that I
send.  It's especially bad in the non-trivial cases where there's more
than one recipient, so "Reply All" will contain a list that won't be
formed the way that it is "usually" formed.

And observed reality is that people, even experienced people, get it
wrong on a regular basis.

> I'm /not/ saying where your reply /does/ go.  I'm saying where I would
> /like/ it to go. 

Mostly, I'd say that you've already said that by including the mailing
list in the To or CC list.  When I reply to a message with multiple
recipients (however those recipients might be specified), I'd say that
the normal convention is to include all of them in any ongoing
discussion by hitting Reply All.  If you wanted your message to go to
the mailing list but didn't want replies to go there, you could have put
the mailing list into the BCC.  (And people do occasionally do that, to
drag a discussion from one mailing list to another, or to shotgun a
broad set of destinations for the initial query but focus discussion in
one place.)
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Dimitri Maziuk]

On 2018-01-24 02:50, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

I'd appreciate if those who have strong opinions on this would take a
look at the analysis below and tell me if I'm missing something.


While I don't have a strong opinion, getting two copes of the same 
message (usual "reply all") behaviour is suboptimal. I've the "please CC 
me when replying to list" .sig for lists where people do it a lot -- not 
that I've been on many lately.


The BBS/webforum convention is "private message" that may or may not 
come with "PM sent" note in the discussion thread. I think that's the 
reasonable way of doing it and that a MUA, when replying to a ML post, 
should give the user 2 options: "reply to list" and "reply off-list".


Since the list should rewrite the From header for DKIMARC, these would 
correspond to list-post/from and reply-to resp.


Dima
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/24/2018 09:16 PM, Jordan Brown wrote:
I don't understand this statement.  Or, I don't understand how it 
disagrees with what I said.  I don't really care whether the MUA has a 
"Reply List" button that does something list-specific.  "Reply" should 
go to the author; "Reply All" should go to all of the original recipients.


It's been a long day, let's just move past.

Of course, and I'm free to participate or not participate in mailing 
lists based on their policies. And although I normally try to resist 
this argument (and don't always succeed), somebody explicitly suggested 
trying to define a best practice... and if there's ever a time to say 
what one thinks the best practice should be, that's it.


That logic seems reasonable to me.

Sure.  That's what "Reply All" means.  Like you said, it's a matter of 
user education


There is a distinct difference in replying to all and replying to the 
list.  Namely the list is a subset of all.


Let's look at a couple of e-mail messages. (And not bothering to put in 
real addresses, or the headers that the mailing list might magically add.)


From: Sam
To: Joe, Dave, Jordan

If I hit Reply, the message goes to Sam.  If I hit Reply All, the message 
goes to Sam, Joe, and Dave.  (And maybe, depending on my MUA, to me too.)


Any controversy there?


Nope.


Now the second message:

From: Sam
To: MailingList

In the scheme I prefer:  If I hit Reply, the message goes to Sam. 
If I hit Reply All, the message goes to Sam and the mailing list. 
This seems totally consistent with the behavior above.


Sure.

In the scheme you prefer (as I understand it):  If I hit Reply, the 
message goes to the mailing list.  If I hit Reply All, the message goes 
to the mailing list.


Using the pseudo headers you provided, hitting Reply would go back to 
Sam.  If there was a Reply-To header, and it was set to the mailing 
list, the message would go to the mailing list.


There's no way to get the message to go just to Sam (absent cutting 
and pasting).  If Sam isn't on the mailing list, he won't even get 
a copy.


Based on how I think /discussion/ mailing lists /should/ operate, I'm 
perfectly fine with that.  I'd go so far as to say that /discussion/ 
mailing lists could remove any and all From / Reply-To / To / Sender / 
et al headers from the message.  -  I think the message that I receive 
as a mailing list subscriber /should/ be /from/ /the/ /list/.  (I'm 
distinctly ignoring any copy that comes to me as a To / CC / BCC as I 
tend to ignore them and only act on the copy from the mailing list.)


I view the mailing list as an entity that is originating the copy that I 
receive.  As such, my replies should go back to said entity.


Note:  This is my opinion of /discussion/ mailing lists.  -  Broadcast 
lists (a.k.a. expansion lists) are different and should make no 
modification to the message content at all.


But most importantly, the behavior is not consistent with the 
non-mailing-list behavior above.


I think this behavior is perfectly consistent with my view of 
/discussion/ mailing lists.



Now another message:

From: Sam
To: MailingList, Joe, Dave, Jordan

In my scheme, again, Reply goes to Sam; Reply All goes to everybody. 
Consistent with the behavior above.


In your scheme, Reply goes to ... ? Well, it depends.  If this is the 
copy of the message that I got through the mailing list, Reply will go 
to the mailing list, Joe, and Dave.


It will depend on how the mailing list is configured.  In my ideal 
scenario for a /discussion/ mailing list, the reply would /only/ go to 
the mailing list.


If, on the other hand, this is the copy that I got directly, Reply will 
go to Sam.  Reply All goes to... if it's the mailing list copy, it goes 
to the mailing list, Joe, and Dave; if it's the direct copy, then Sam, 
the mailing list, Joe, and Dave.  For the two replies based on the mailing 
list copy, the message won't go to Sam unless he's on the mailing list.


I feel sorry for Sam and think that he should subscribe to the mailing 
list.  But s/he has that option.



And another:

From: Sam
To: MailingListA, MailingListB

For fun, let's assume that I'm on both mailing lists.


Okay.

My scheme:  Reply goes to Sam; Reply All goes to Sam and both mailing 
lists.  Consistent with the behavior above.


Your scheme:  Reply:  If this is the copy I got through list A, it goes 
to list A; if it's the copy I got through list B, it goes to list B. 
Reply All:  goes to both mailing lists.  Only goes to Sam if he's on 
one of the mailing lists.


Sure.

Now, when you consider all of those cases, which scheme is simpler and 
easier to understand?  Which is less likely to have messages going to 
unexpected groups of people, when you spend all day responding to a mix 
of all of the types?


I understand your logic.  It seems reasonable enough.  I still disagree 
with it.  -  By the way the sun is purple.  ;-)  We can agree to disagree.


And yes, 

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Jordan Brown]

On 1/24/2018 4:48 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:
> On 01/24/2018 10:40 AM, Jordan Brown wrote:
>> If a message had only List-Post and From, that wouldn't get the
>> result that I would want.  I would want Reply to go to the author. As
>> a list member, I consider it an absolute requirement that Reply go to
>> the author and only to the author; I boycott any list that directs
>> Reply to the list.  (I've dropped off the "staff" list for an event I
>> was participating in for this reason.)
>
> I think that the difference of Reply vs Reply-List applies to your
> statement.

I don't understand this statement.  Or, I don't understand how it
disagrees with what I said.  I don't really care whether the MUA has a
"Reply List" button that does something list-specific.  "Reply" should
go to the author; "Reply All" should go to all of the original recipients.

> You are entitled to your opinion of how a mailing list should operate
> and free to configure any mailing lists you manage accordingly.

Of course, and I'm free to participate or not participate in mailing
lists based on their policies. And although I normally try to resist
this argument (and don't always succeed), somebody explicitly suggested
trying to define a best practice... and if there's ever a time to say
what one thinks the best practice should be, that's it.

>> I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the
>> author, the list, and any other To or CC destinations.  I simply
>> can't understand any other answer.  I don't understand why anybody
>> feels a need for "Reply List".
>
> Lack of understanding does not mean that other ways are invalid.
>
> See my comment above for why I want replies to my message to
> /discussion/ lists to go to the list.

Sure.  That's what "Reply All" means.  Like you said, it's a matter of
user education :-)

Let's look at a couple of e-mail messages. (And not bothering to put in
real addresses, or the headers that the mailing list might magically add.)

From: Sam
To: Joe, Dave, Jordan

If I hit Reply, the message goes to Sam.  If I hit Reply All, the
message goes to Sam, Joe, and Dave.  (And maybe, depending on my MUA, to
me too.)

Any controversy there?

Now the second message:

From: Sam
To: MailingList

In the scheme I prefer:  If I hit Reply, the message goes to Sam.  If I
hit Reply All, the message goes to Sam and the mailing list.  This seems
totally consistent with the behavior above.

In the scheme you prefer (as I understand it):  If I hit Reply, the
message goes to the mailing list.  If I hit Reply All, the message goes
to the mailing list.  There's no way to get the message to go just to
Sam (absent cutting and pasting).  If Sam isn't on the mailing list, he
won't even get a copy.  But most importantly, the behavior is not
consistent with the non-mailing-list behavior above.

Now another message:

From: Sam
To: MailingList, Joe, Dave, Jordan

In my scheme, again, Reply goes to Sam; Reply All goes to everybody. 
Consistent with the behavior above.

In your scheme, Reply goes to ... ? Well, it depends.  If this is the
copy of the message that I got through the mailing list, Reply will go
to the mailing list, Joe, and Dave.  If, on the other hand, this is the
copy that I got directly, Reply will go to Sam.  Reply All goes to... if
it's the mailing list copy, it goes to the mailing list, Joe, and Dave;
if it's the direct copy, then Sam, the mailing list, Joe, and Dave.  For
the two replies based on the mailing list copy, the message won't go to
Sam unless he's on the mailing list.

And another:

From: Sam
To: MailingListA, MailingListB

For fun, let's assume that I'm on both mailing lists.

My scheme:  Reply goes to Sam; Reply All goes to Sam and both mailing
lists.  Consistent with the behavior above.

Your scheme:  Reply:  If this is the copy I got through list A, it goes
to list A; if it's the copy I got through list B, it goes to list B. 
Reply All:  goes to both mailing lists.  Only goes to Sam if he's on one
of the mailing lists.


Now, when you consider all of those cases, which scheme is simpler and
easier to understand?  Which is less likely to have messages going to
unexpected groups of people, when you spend all day responding to a mix
of all of the types?

And yes, those are all very real cases.  I expect that if I go through
my work e-mail for the last day I'll find examples of each, and I would
be virtually certain if I looked through a week.  (And that includes the
"Sam isn't a member of the mailing list" variants; those are *very* common.)


> In fact, I really dislike receiving the CC when messages are going to
> the list that I'm subscribed to.

Yes, that's a nuisance, but I think it's not nearly as bad as the
alternatives.  It costs me a tap of the Delete key; it doesn't send my
private criticism of the author to his boss.

What's really needed there is a MUA that hides duplicates, though that's
tricky when mailing list software 

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Jordan Brown]

On 1/24/2018 12:50 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> I think there's an obvious algorithm for "smart single reply":
>
> 1.  If there is a Reply-To, address the message to Reply-To.
> 2.  Else if there is a List-Post, address the message to List-Post.
> 3.  Else address the message to From.  (If there's no From, the
> message violates the most basic RFCs so all bets are off.)
>
> Assuming that no lists munge Reply-To, I think you'll agree that this
> is what you want 90% of the time (conservative estimate).  There are
> some issues with this algorithm in practice:

If a message had only List-Post and From, that wouldn't get the result
that I would want.  I would want Reply to go to the author.  As a list
member, I consider it an absolute requirement that Reply go to the
author and only to the author; I boycott any list that directs Reply to
the list.  (I've dropped off the "staff" list for an event I was
participating in for this reason.)

I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the author,
the list, and any other To or CC destinations.  I simply can't
understand any other answer.  I don't understand why anybody feels a
need for "Reply List".

How that translates into headers that the mailing list software
generates, shrug.  Yes, the mailing list software could always force in
a Reply-To:  to get the semantics that I want, but why should it
add that noise?  Or the mailing list software could omit List-Post,
which I suppose would be fine too (since I don't understand why you
would want it).

Before DMARC munging, I could have (mis)configured my MUA to ignore
Reply-To and mostly gotten the right semantics even on an evil
Reply-To: list.  With DMARC munging that's no longer an option; I
need Reply-To:  on DMARC-munged lists.

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/24/2018 10:40 AM, Jordan Brown wrote:

On 1/24/2018 12:50 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

I think there's an obvious algorithm for "smart single reply":

1.  If there is a Reply-To, address the message to Reply-To.
2.  Else if there is a List-Post, address the message to List-Post.
3.  Else address the message to From.  (If there's no From, the
 message violates the most basic RFCs so all bets are off.)

Assuming that no lists munge Reply-To, I think you'll agree that this
is what you want 90% of the time (conservative estimate).  There are
some issues with this algorithm in practice:


If a message had only List-Post and From, that wouldn't get the result 
that I would want.  I would want Reply to go to the author. As a list 
member, I consider it an absolute requirement that Reply go to the 
author and only to the author; I boycott any list that directs Reply to 
the list.  (I've dropped off the "staff" list for an event I was 
participating in for this reason.)


I think that the difference of Reply vs Reply-List applies to your 
statement.


You are entitled to your opinion of how a mailing list should operate 
and free to configure any mailing lists you manage accordingly.


I prefer that discussion mailing lists direct replies to the mailing 
list so that other subscribers are aware of and can participate in the 
discussions.


I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the author, 
the list, and any other To or CC destinations.  I simply can't 
understand any other answer.  I don't understand why anybody feels a 
need for "Reply List".


Lack of understanding does not mean that other ways are invalid.

See my comment above for why I want replies to my message to 
/discussion/ lists to go to the list.


In fact, I really dislike receiving the CC when messages are going to 
the list that I'm subscribed to.


How that translates into headers that the mailing list software 
generates, shrug.  Yes, the mailing list software could always force in 
a Reply-To:  to get the semantics that I want, but why should it 
add that noise?  Or the mailing list software could omit List-Post, 
which I suppose would be fine too (since I don't understand why you 
would want it).


I thought the List-Post: header was more informational about how to post 
messages to the mailing list.  -  I thought MUAs started offering an 
option to use the List-Post header to purposefully send replies to the 
list instead of the author (From:|Reply-To:).


Before DMARC munging, I could have (mis)configured my MUA to ignore 
Reply-To and mostly gotten the right semantics even on an evil 
Reply-To: list.  With DMARC munging that's no longer an option; I 
need Reply-To:  on DMARC-munged lists.


How can you tell the difference between me setting the Reply-To: to be 
the Mailman Users mailing list (which I have done for this email) and 
the mailing list manager doing it?  What do you do in these cases?  Not 
sending the reply to the list is contrary to my desires (evident by me 
setting the Reply-To:) or the mailing list owners desires if they choose 
to munge the reply.  And yes, the mailing list is going to munge the 
From for DMARC reasons.




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/24/2018 01:50 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I'd appreciate if those who have strong opinions on this would take a 
look at the analysis below and tell me if I'm missing something.  If not, 
maybe I'll write up a BCP (non-standards-track RFC[1]) so it's on record.


See my comments inline below.

This proposal actually has a history going back to about 2005.  I didn't 
do anything about it because I got a lot of pushback from MUA writers, 
and writing RFCs is worse than writing PEPs (Pythonistas are either sane 
or go away soon, not so for IETF mailing lists .  But if its still an 
issue maybe it's worth the effort.


I think there's an obvious algorithm for "smart single reply":


I doubt that's the case.


1.  If there is a Reply-To, address the message to Reply-To.


Baring other influences, this is where the author or the message sender 
(if it's someone other than the author) wants replies to go to.



2.  Else if there is a List-Post, address the message to List-Post.


I don't think that it's appropriate to always prefer the List-Post over 
the From ~> Reply-To.


MUAs (are starting to) have separate functions for reply to From / 
Reply-To vs reply to list.


I can see a case for a broadcast mailing list that's open for all 
members to post to where neither From nor Reply-To munging takes place. 
The author can send from one address (From) and want replies to go 
elsewhere (Reply-To) while the MLM adds a List-Post header to comply 
with other standards.  I feel like a reply to such a message should go 
to the Reply-To (as set by the author) and not the List-Post as set by 
the MLM.


Reply-List in such a case is a distinctly different operation.

I can also see a case where a message author might choose to 
(dynamically) set the Reply-To to something like "Reply-To:  Please 
reply to the Mailman-Users mailing list. "


3.  Else address the message to From.  (If there's no From, the message 
violates the most basic RFCs so all bets are off.)


¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sounds like the classic case of "undefined behavior" to me.

Assuming that no lists munge Reply-To, I think you'll agree that this 
is what you want 90% of the time (conservative estimate).  There are 
some issues with this algorithm in practice:


I disagree for a number of reasons.  Some of which are outlined above.

1.  Some lists should not encourage reply-to-list (eg, for privacy 
reasons).  This can be worked around by omitting List-Post, or solved 
by additional protocol so that the list sets a header field saying 
"don't automatically reply here just because there's a List-Post. 
Given how conservative MUA writers are, I'd say "KISS" for these, 
and make users cut-n-paste.  Most of the time a reply-to-list here is 
probably thread hijacking anyway.


I see an opportunity for a "List-Reply-To" header that could indicate if 
/replies/ should go to the list (List-Post) or the author 
(Reply-To|From).  I suppose that it could also be possible to specify an 
alternate address for replies to go to, i.e. for thread tracking or 
something like that.


This would still leave us in the situation where MUAs need to 
differentiate between a generic Reply and a Reply-to-List behavior. 
Plus the associated action for the reply keyboard sequence.


I feel like this is /mostly/ a user education issue.  There may be some 
room for UI / UX improvement.  Ultimately it's up to the MTA to do what 
the user wans done.  Consider the following:


From: Author 
To: List 
Reply-To: Author 
List-Post: List 

Where should replies to the author go to?  Where should replies to the 
list go to?  Where should the (undefined) "reply" go to?


I don't think that it's likely for the MTA to automagically know what 
needs to be done.


2.  Some users will want to override the algorithm and reply specifically 
to list or author.  MUAs should provide buttons or menu items for these 
infrequently used options.


I think it is wrong for us to ascribe frequency of use for other users. 
Just because I do something some way does not mean that others do so 
with the same frequency, or even the same thing.


I personally use Reply List more than I use Reply (Author [From|Reply-To]).

3.  Your favorite list munges Reply-To.  Nothing changes here, people are 
still going to be embarrassed by sending remarks intended to be private 
to a broad audience, and in some configurations of Mailman the original 
Reply-To or the From will get dupes.  At least you can override with a 
reply-to-author function.


I feel like this is a user education issue.  Sadly, pain of 
embarrassment is a good teacher.



I don't understand what Thunderbird thought they were doing. 


I think they were trying to apply a technological solution to what I 
believe is fundamentally a user education issue.




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

I'd appreciate if those who have strong opinions on this would take a
look at the analysis below and tell me if I'm missing something.  If
not, maybe I'll write up a BCP (non-standards-track RFC[1]) so it's on
record.

This proposal actually has a history going back to about 2005.  I
didn't do anything about it because I got a lot of pushback from MUA
writers, and writing RFCs is worse than writing PEPs (Pythonistas are
either sane or go away soon, not so for IETF mailing lists ;-).  But
if its still an issue maybe it's worth the effort.

Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users writes:

 > What I find interesting is that mail.override_list_reply_to is set to 
 > True by default in my copy of Thunderbird, 52.5.0.

I think there's an obvious algorithm for "smart single reply":

1.  If there is a Reply-To, address the message to Reply-To.
2.  Else if there is a List-Post, address the message to List-Post.
3.  Else address the message to From.  (If there's no From, the
message violates the most basic RFCs so all bets are off.)

Assuming that no lists munge Reply-To, I think you'll agree that this
is what you want 90% of the time (conservative estimate).  There are
some issues with this algorithm in practice:

1.  Some lists should not encourage reply-to-list (eg, for privacy
reasons).  This can be worked around by omitting List-Post, or
solved by additional protocol so that the list sets a header field
saying "don't automatically reply here just because there's a
List-Post.  Given how conservative MUA writers are, I'd say "KISS"
for these, and make users cut-n-paste.  Most of the time a
reply-to-list here is probably thread hijacking anyway.
2.  Some users will want to override the algorithm and reply
specifically to list or author.  MUAs should provide buttons or
menu items for these infrequently used options.
3.  Your favorite list munges Reply-To.  Nothing changes here, people
are still going to be embarrassed by sending remarks intended to
be private to a broad audience, and in some configurations of
Mailman the original Reply-To or the From will get dupes.  At
least you can override with a reply-to-author function.

I don't understand what Thunderbird thought they were doing. 

Steve

Footnotes: 
[1]  MUA UI best practices like this technically don't have anything
to do with Internet protocol semantics.

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Dimitri Maziuk]

On 01/22/2018 04:55 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> Its worse than that: what about people who intentionally set the Reply 
> To header on *non-mailing list* emails?

Then you won't get the "reply list" option in the first place.

In the basic reply-to case, the mailer *should* -- as defined by modern
RFCs -- honor the reply-to header.

In the case of a mailing list my options are reply to list, reply to
From:, reply to Reply-To:, or any combination thereof, and I fully
expect the program to read both my and the original sender's minds and
Do The Right Thing(tm) with a single click.

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/22/2018 03:55 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Its worse than that: what about people who intentionally set the Reply 
To header on non-mailing list emails?


I believe the new behavior is only triggered when the Reply-To: and 
List-Post: headers match.


I guess that might be a problem if the mailing list manager alters the 
Reply-To: header.  But I think that would be the case despite of 
Thunderbird's recent change.




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:41:28AM -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 01/22/2018 11:20 AM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:
> > 
> > So, I think Thunderbird's new default is going to cause messages to go
> > back to the author, ignoring the Reply-To.
> 
> That's correct.
> 
> > I can see how this could be annoying as a message author who wants
> > messages to be directed to the mailing list, particularly if I set the
> > Reply-To to be the mailing list.  *sigh*
> 
> The T'bird developers view is that in these cases, you are offered a
> "Reply List" button and therefore, if you use "Reply" instead of "Reply
> List" you must want the reply to go somewhere other than the list. 

Its worse than that: what about people who intentionally set the Reply 
To header on *non-mailing list* emails?

E.g. if I'm about to go on holiday, I might reply to a work email:

"Please send replies to f...@example.com"

(which, of course, business email users don't read or pay attention to) 
and set the Reply To to ensure that replies go to Fred.


-- 
Steve
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Mark Sapiro]

On 01/22/2018 12:10 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:
> 
> Wow.  How could the Thunderbird developers even fathom to introduce an
> RFC compliant dictated behavior /without/ giving an option to revert.


There is a long history behind this and I agree that T'bird has not
always made good decisions on this, but if you want a better
understanding and have a few hours to kill, start with
 (created 17 years
ago). Read the entire comment thread there and then those in
 and in
.

It's like a game of "telephone" to see what the original request morphed
into.

-- 
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/22/2018 12:41 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:

That's correct.


*chuckle*

I guess this is one time when munging the From for DMARC reasons may 
help ensure that messages do go back to the list.


The T'bird developers view is that in these cases, you are offered a 
"Reply List" button and therefore, if you use "Reply" instead of "Reply 
List" you must want the reply to go somewhere other than the list. This 
of course ignores all those people who will use "Reply" or control-R out 
of long habit and not because they want something other than "Reply List".


Yep, that's the logic I've read.  Not that I agree with it.

I will say that I frequently hit the reply list button, but I do agree 
that reply should have the proper default behavior, even in the presence 
of a List-Post header.


I view this as an attempt to coddle a few people.  People that I believe 
need some training.  Instead, the rest of the masses will now have to 
alter their behavior because of the few.


New law, nobody is allowed to drive when it's raining because John Doe 
is too scared to do so, thus nobody should be allowed to.  *HEAVYsigh*


The real problem is the default for mail.override_list_reply_to is True 
and it should be False, but at least in T'bird 52.x we have an option 
which we didn't have when the new behavior was first introduced in 
T'bird 50.0.


Wow.  How could the Thunderbird developers even fathom to introduce an 
RFC compliant dictated behavior /without/ giving an option to revert.


*headDesk*



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Mark Sapiro]

On 01/22/2018 11:20 AM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:
> 
> So, I think Thunderbird's new default is going to cause messages to go
> back to the author, ignoring the Reply-To.


That's correct.


> I can see how this could be annoying as a message author who wants
> messages to be directed to the mailing list, particularly if I set the
> Reply-To to be the mailing list.  *sigh*


The T'bird developers view is that in these cases, you are offered a
"Reply List" button and therefore, if you use "Reply" instead of "Reply
List" you must want the reply to go somewhere other than the list. This
of course ignores all those people who will use "Reply" or control-R out
of long habit and not because they want something other than "Reply List".

The real problem is the default for mail.override_list_reply_to is True
and it should be False, but at least in T'bird 52.x we have an option
which we didn't have when the new behavior was first introduced in
T'bird 50.0.

-- 
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/22/2018 12:17 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
My bad. I was confused. In my answer above, "False" should be "True" and 
vice versa.


;-)



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/22/2018 10:37 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
With the default mail.override_list_reply_to = False, for a message with 
a List-Post: header and with the list posting address also in a Reply-To: 
header, T'bird will ignore the Reply-To: header and address a "Reply" 
to the From: address.


Setting mail.override_list_reply_to = True will restore RFC compliant 
behavior and address a "Reply" to the Reply-To: header address(es).


With the information that you have provided I was able to test this.

My findings appear to be opposite of what you have outlined, and 
correspond with what Hal wrote.


My test message has the same address in Reply-To: and List-Post: and a 
different address in From:.


With mail.override_list_reply_to set to true (the default), the reply 
went to the From: address.


With mail.override_list_reply_to set to false, the reply went to the 
Reply-To: address.


So, I think Thunderbird's new default is going to cause messages to go 
back to the author, ignoring the Reply-To.


I can see how this could be annoying as a message author who wants 
messages to be directed to the mailing list, particularly if I set the 
Reply-To to be the mailing list.  *sigh*




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Mark Sapiro]

On 01/22/2018 10:58 AM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:
> On 01/22/2018 10:37 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>> With the default mail.override_list_reply_to = False, for a message
>> with a List-Post: header and with the list posting address also in a
>> Reply-To: header, T'bird will ignore the Reply-To: header and address
>> a "Reply" to the From: address.
>>
>> Setting mail.override_list_reply_to = True will restore RFC compliant
>> behavior and address a "Reply" to the Reply-To: header address(es).
> 
> Thank you for the concise answer Mark.  :-)
> 
> What I find interesting is that mail.override_list_reply_to is set to
> True by default in my copy of Thunderbird, 52.5.0.


My bad. I was confused. In my answer above, "False" should be "True" and
vice versa.

-- 
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Hal via Mailman-Users]

On 22/01/18 18:24, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:

Will someone please enlighten me on how mail.override_list_reply_to 
behaves when set to true (the default) vs false?


If set to TRUE (the default value) replies will go directly to the 
sender of the message.


If set to FALSE, replies will go to the mailing list.
That's my experience anyway (I use Thunderbird 52.5.2 Mac).


Hal
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/22/2018 10:37 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
With the default mail.override_list_reply_to = False, for a message with 
a List-Post: header and with the list posting address also in a Reply-To: 
header, T'bird will ignore the Reply-To: header and address a "Reply" 
to the From: address.


Setting mail.override_list_reply_to = True will restore RFC compliant 
behavior and address a "Reply" to the Reply-To: header address(es).


Thank you for the concise answer Mark.  :-)

What I find interesting is that mail.override_list_reply_to is set to 
True by default in my copy of Thunderbird, 52.5.0.




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Mark Sapiro]

On 01/22/2018 09:24 AM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:
> 
> Will someone please enlighten me on how mail.override_list_reply_to
> behaves when set to true (the default) vs false?


With the default mail.override_list_reply_to = False, for a message with
a List-Post: header and with the list posting address also in a
Reply-To: header, T'bird will ignore the Reply-To: header and address a
"Reply" to the From: address.

Setting mail.override_list_reply_to = True will restore RFC compliant
behavior and address a "Reply" to the Reply-To: header address(es).

-- 
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users]

On 01/20/2018 12:05 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
What actually happens with "reply" depends on a few things. If the mail 
client involved is Thunderbird, it doesn't behave as expected. See 
. In 
short, in recent T'bird if the message has a List-Post: header 
and T'bird offers a "Reply List" button, "Reply" will ignore 
Reply-To: if it's the list address and reply to the From:. In 
more recent T'bird, you can restore the expected behavior be 
setting mail.override_list_reply_to False in the config editor (see 
), but this has 
to be done by every list member that uses T'bird.


Oh for $

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Mark Sapiro]

On 01/22/2018 04:01 AM, Hal via Mailman-Users wrote:
> 
> Apart from Thunderbird, are there other email apps which cause this issue?


Thunderbird is the only MUA I'm aware of that does this. Their theory is
since they offer a "Reply List" button, if you "Reply" you must want to
reply to the sender since if you wanted to reply to the list you'd use
"Reply List". This of course ignores everyone who uses "Reply" or
control-R habitually without thinking about it.

This has been argued to death in the bug reports. I wish they'd made the
default honor the Reply-To:, but we're lucky we got an option at all.

-- 
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Hal via Mailman-Users]

On 20/01/18 20:05, Mark Sapiro wrote:

On 01/20/2018 10:18 AM, Hal via Mailman-Users wrote:

I'm a little confused about the "reply-to" setting as I was pretty sure
I had set my list up so that all replies by default go back to the list,
but for some reason a reply goes directly to the sender.




recent T'bird if the message has a List-Post: header and T'bird offers a
"Reply List" button, "Reply" will ignore Reply-To: if it's the list
address and reply to the From:. In more recent T'bird, you can restore
the expected behavior be setting mail.override_list_reply_to False in
the config editor (see
), but this has to
be done by every list member that uses T'bird.

There are other possibilities, but I think the above is the likely issue
in your case.


Thanks Mark!
Yes, that was the problem here as I'm a Thunderbird user. Changing the 
above preference now makes it possible to just press "Reply" and it goes 
to the list.


I did notice a "Reply to list" option ("Message"-"Reply to list" menu) 
but I like to keep things simple, so a single "Reply" button is much 
preferred.


I've posted a message to my mailing list about this so that hopefully 
every Thunderbird user will do the same (only to remember to do a "Reply 
to all" and remove the list address for reply-postings not meant for the 
list but rather directly to the sender).


Apart from Thunderbird, are there other email apps which cause this issue?


Hal
--
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

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working

[Mark Sapiro]

On 01/20/2018 10:18 AM, Hal via Mailman-Users wrote:
> I'm a little confused about the "reply-to" setting as I was pretty sure
> I had set my list up so that all replies by default go back to the list,
> but for some reason a reply goes directly to the sender.


If you set "reply_goes_to_list" to "this list", "reply_to_address" is
ignored, and Mailman adds the list posting address to a Reply-To: header
in the outgoing mail. If there is an incoming Reply-To: and
"first_strip_reply_to" is "no" the address is added to the incoming
Reply-To:. If there is no incoming Reply-To: or "first_strip_reply_to"
is "yes", the address is the only address in the outgoing Reply-To:.

If "reply_goes_to_list" is "explicit address" then "reply_to_address" is
added rather than the list posting address. If "reply_to_address" is the
list posting address, then it's the same as "this list".

What actually happens with "reply" depends on a few things. If the mail
client involved is Thunderbird, it doesn't behave as expected. See
. In short, in
recent T'bird if the message has a List-Post: header and T'bird offers a
"Reply List" button, "Reply" will ignore Reply-To: if it's the list
address and reply to the From:. In more recent T'bird, you can restore
the expected behavior be setting mail.override_list_reply_to False in
the config editor (see
), but this has to
be done by every list member that uses T'bird.

There are other possibilities, but I think the above is the likely issue
in your case.

-- 
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan
--
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