On Sat, 2015-02-28 at 14:10 -0800, Darren Duncan wrote: > > My comment on "whoever" is meant to be plural. > > I think as a general principle that whenever people reply to list messages, > they > look at the headers of the message they are writing and make sure the list > doesn't appear twice in the recipients field. > > If the result of hitting reply or reply-all to some message in a client puts > the > same recipient in the address bar twice, then the users should remove the > extra > copies, that's what I do, it can be simple as that.
That's ironic. The problem here is the Reply-To: setting on the mailing list. If a user hits 'Reply' on a message, that should always go to the sender of the message they're looking at. If a user hits 'Reply to All' on a message, *that* should go to everyone. This list has a 'Reply-To' header which hijacks the private reply so that it goes to the list... which a lot of list admins do precisely because they *don't* want their users to have to think at all, because they assume their users are so dim that they can't even manage to correctly choose between the private 'Reply' button and the public 'Reply All' button that's *right* next to it. (To be fair, there's often a lot of truth in that assumption, but it's largely a self-fulfilling prophecy because although things *should* be simple, a lot of people are confused by what is *not* inconsistent behaviour of the private "Reply" button which ought to *always* give a private reply.... and is now just confusing because of this misguided attempt to make things simpler.) So what happens here is people do the right thing and hit 'Reply All' to reply publicly, and that misguided Reply-To: header is corrupting the behaviour so that their reply goes *both* to the added Reply-To: address 'sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org' *and* to the address which was in the To: or Cc: of the previous message, 'sqlite-users at sqlite.org'. So the only reason people now have to pay careful attention to the recipients in their reply is because the list "helpfully" hacks things... ostensibly so that they *don't* have to pay attention to what they're doing. Nice :) -- dwmw2
