[erlang-questions] mailing list "reply to"

[Raimo Niskanen]

On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 09:13:11PM -0600, Jesse Gumm wrote:
> For me, it makes more sense to mangle the reply-to header since 99% of
> the time, I'm replying to the mailing list rather than do the
> individual.  It makes more sense to me to make the default behavior be
> the most common behavior.  I view a mailing list as just another way
> of implementing an online forum, and in that regard, the default
> action is to reply to the thread, rather than via PM.
> 
> If I'm in the minority, and most people actually do private replies
> more frequently than public ones, then that makes sense why it's the
> default, preferred way.
> 
> -Jesse
> 

Hi.

I am currently the list maintainer of all mailing lists @erlang.org,
and have been so for some years now.

This discussion surfaces a few times per year and it always
homes in on the same conclusion:

Changing the setting of not munging the Reply-To: header
would cause more harm to many enough users to not motivate
the benefit other users would get. And of course break existing
standards and practices for _mailing lists_.

Read the article supplied below by Kenji Rikitake:
    http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
and why not the old debate referenced by that article:
    http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
    http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml

Here is the summary from the freshest article:

    Summary

    Some people want to munge Reply-To header fields. They believe it makes
    reply-to-list easier, and it encourages more list traffic. It really
    does neither, and not only is it a poor idea but it's forbidden
    by Internet standards.

    The IETF has spoken, and if you violate their standard and munge your
    Reply-To header fields you're just creating problems for everybody.

I still see no new reasons to change the current standarized behaviour.

/ Raimo Niskanen



> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Alain O'Dea <alain.odea@REDACTED> wrote:
> > I love how this topic resurfaces perennially.  I tried to apply the Reply is
> > private Reply All goes to Group to a Google Group I created for my
> > graduating class.  They flipped out and I reversed it.  Young people these
> > days ;)
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Kenji Rikitake <kenji.rikitake@REDACTED>wrote:
> >
> >> A reference to the history of Reply-To: header handling:
> >> http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
> >>
> >> FYI
> >> Kenji Rikitake
> >>
> >> ________________________________________________________________
> >> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
> >> See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> >> To unsubscribe; mailto:erlang-questions-unsubscribe@REDACTED
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jesse Gumm
> Sigma Star Systems
> 414.940.4866
> gumm@REDACTED
> http://www.sigma-star.com
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
> See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> To unsubscribe; mailto:erlang-questions-unsubscribe@REDACTED
> 

-- 

/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB