[lug] Re: More on Reply-To

[Peter Hutnick]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 06 June 2002 05:21 pm, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 04:22:24PM -0600, Peter Hutnick wrote:
> >Aaah.  Let's not plunge into a spiral of mis-features to correct other
> >mis-features!
>
> I'll keep it short here, but I believe that lists which offer community
> support should have the reply set to the list, encouraging continued
> community participation as opposed to encouraging requests for private
> one-on-one support.  See my message posted to the NCLUG list within the
> last week when the list was suddenly changed to remove the "reply-to
> munging" (the subject was "Reply-To preservation considered harmful").

Ah, but that is just the problem.  Munged reply-tos are the reason that people 
accidentally don't reply to the list in the first place.  If no one ever did 
reply-to munging it would be obvious to all that "reply" replies to author 
and "reply all", uh, replies to everyone.  See how intuitive this is?

> >You probably wouldn't even think of such a thing if it weren't for the
> >negative side effects of reply-to munging by mailing list managers.
>
> It would seem that with software so easily supporting the ability to remove
> the munging, that it's best to enable munging and let those who would
> prefer opt out...  If for no other reason that there doesn't seem to be the
> converse option for "Hey, guess at what the reply-to should be for this
> message"...

One of the problems is that you CAN NOT "remove the munging" in the MUA, 
because the original reply-to, if any, is lost.  You can't even tell if there 
was one that was lost.

If you are saying have opt-out at the MLM for each user I think that would be 
marginally better than global munging, but not nearly as good as no munging, 
since I couldn't stop my reply-to (that is, on messages I send) from being 
whacked.

The argument isn't against the general use of the reply-to header.  And, 
really, you can ignore the reply-to in any MTA (without a special feature).  
The problem is that it causes /decreased/ functionality for the purported 
benefit of keeping the conversation on the list, but the only people that 
this "helps" are people who have been conditioned by this unhelpful 
configuration in the first place.

To draw an intentionally prejudicial analogy:  Heroin must be good for me 
because when I stop taking it I throw up and get the shakes.

> >I think the best thing is to 1. fight the good fight against reply-to
> > munging and 2. use "reply all" when in doubt and fix the to: line by
> > hand.
>
> So, are you implying that you would like to start a movement to convert the
> BLUG list?  It *DOES* do reply-to munging, and I believe it should continue
> to.

"Movement" might be too strong a word.  I often don't notice it because I use 
"reply all" when I want to reply to a list, which is almost always the case.  
This gives the same behavior on both kinds of lists, /except/ that people who 
use reply-to get their replies at the wrong address on munging lists.  When I 
do notice a list is configured that way I often complain to the list admin an 
often try to get others to as well.

- -Peter

- -- 
/"\ ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
\ /
 X   Get my PGP key at http://hutnick.com/pgp
/ \  6128 5651 6F23 EC17 6EBD  737D 960A 20E6 76CA 8A59
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9AApFlgog5nbKilkRAuYcAJ9Ed/3h1L7mcbzHcpyko5Yjg/x4YgCfY+M6
NI32Ca2mAc/XsokiABbjQsY=
=MGs6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----