On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 21:10 -0600, Mike Owens wrote: > The problem is that this is the very bone of contention in the reply-to > religious war.
Religious as in there are strongly-held beliefs on both sides, but only one is really based in logic and common sense? :) > Is it not? I may be wrong, but I thought this is the very > setting that people get so defensive about changing. Yes, it's Reply-To: that people get defensive about changing, but... > As we have it now, > people have a suitable default pointing back to the (correct) list but also > the freedom to change the reply-to header should they want to. If we strip > the reply-to header in order to correct for the problematic MUA's, then the > latter freedom is lost. And if I remember correctly, some people get very > angry about this. ... that isn't really the point. People *do* talk about 'freedom', but it's the freedom to have their mail client actually do as they ask it. A mail client has a private 'Reply' button, and a public 'Reply All' button. Each has a clear and simple function. If the list abuses the Reply-To: field, that overrides the behaviour of the private Reply button, hijacking it to send a public reply to the list. So the recipients' freedom is taken away from them ? it's like breaking into their computer and hacking their mail client so that *both* buttons do the same thing ? occasionally leading to a *highly* embarrassing event when private emails are accidentally sent to the list. If the list *doesn't* abuse the Reply-To: field, then the mail client does the right thing. The private Reply, and the public Reply All buttons, both do precisely what they should. The main reason people advocate for munging Reply-To: is usually that "list members are too dim to press the right button". Which aside from being fairly insulting, is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy ? because for those who genuinely are that unsophisticated, by hacking their mail clients to behave inconsistently, you actually *reduce* their chances of understanding it all. The private/public reply button concept is *so* simple, that I'd suggest the *main* reason people have problems with it is because of misguided Reply-To: headers changing the behaviour and making it inconsistent. It should also be noted that the failure mode when you do the hack can sometimes be catastrophic, as public postings can never be undone. The failure mode if someone accidentally hits the wrong button, as well as being entirely their own fault, is very minor ? all they need to do is resend the message. And in the general case, if someone isn't *even* paying enough attention to press the right button, sometimes there is *benefit* in having their messages not reach the list until the coffee has kicked in and they're a little more awake. They can edit the message before they resend it :) There is little benefit in a Reply-To: header, and it is actually *counter-productive* in the long run for the one case where it has any dubious logic at all. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://david.woodhou.se/reply-to-list.html -- dwmw2
