On 2014-04-28 16:07, akhiezer wrote:
p.s. iirc I think that Aleksandar Kuktin did mention in passing - in a
rather detailed-subject thread - s'thing like, 'hey, your replyto
field is set'; and I didn't followup on clarifying what was the
intended import of the note. --
There is a mailinglist configuration inside Mailman that deals with it.
It's actually considered a bad thing to set things the way we do. Here's
some info:
* reply_goes_to_list* (general): Where are replies to list messages
directed? Poster is *strongly* recommended for most mailing lists.
(we have our lists set against this recommendation)
This option controls what Mailman does to the Reply-To: header in
messages flowing through this mailing list. When set to Poster, no
Reply-To: header is added by Mailman, although if one is present in the
original message, it is not stripped. Setting this value to either This
list or Explicit address causes Mailman to insert a specific
Reply-To: header in all messages, overriding the header in the original
message if necessary (Explicit address inserts the value of
reply_to_address).
There are many reasons not to introduce or override the Reply-To:
header. One is that some posters depend on their own Reply-To: settings
to convey their valid return address. Another is that modifying
Reply-To: makes it much more difficult to send private replies. See
`Reply-To' Munging Considered Harmful
(http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html) for a general
discussion of this issue. See Reply-To Munging Considered Useful
(http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml) for a dissenting opinion.
Some mailing lists have restricted posting privileges, with a
parallel list devoted to discussions. Examples are `patches' or
`checkin' lists, where software changes are posted by a revision control
system, but discussion about the changes occurs on a developers mailing
list. To support these types of mailing lists, select Explicit address
and set the Reply-To: address below to point to the parallel list.
Historically we have followed the "can be useful" setup because in the
old days we found a lot of replies were lost -- they were sent to the
poster directly and then those two parties launched into a discussion
about whatever, without realizing the rest of the list was no longer
included. This lead to all sorts of disconnects and repeating of issues
as they might have been answered, but only privately.
This happened often enough for us to turn on the reply-to munging to
help things out. It took the thinking out of it -- you can hit reply and
you know everybody will get the reply. Not everybody is used to hitting
the "reply all" button or shortcut.
Having said that, this is now obviously causing issues with your setup,
as your MUA isn't handing the munging well. In truth, not many do. I
just have been using this setup for nearly 15 year within the LFS
project that I'm used to it...that's not to say we're doing the /right/
thing perse. Lesser of two evils perhaps. This is always a debate that
has no good answer. Pros and cons are equal. Can't please everybody as
the axiom goes.
Gerard
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/website
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
