Munging reply-to header (was: Re: [OT] Roggenfloggen...)

eriddle at linuxcare.com eriddle at linuxcare.com
Mon Dec 11 16:02:20 PST 2000


Leave it :)

Quoting Gerard Beekmans on Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 03:29:18PM -0500 :
> > Except myself and the people behind
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> 
> I am well aware of all the facts stated in that document. I would be an 
> ignorant list admin if I didn't read the docs for list admins before starting 
> to manage lists.
> 
> That aside, the reason why I munge reply-to is the following:
> not everybody uses a client that you can tell to reply to the list only (like 
> mutt can do). So those people need to use the group-reply button. That's very 
> nice in itself. It sends a message to the author and to the mailinglist. That 
> means for every reply to a message posted by you, you will two replies. One 
> directed at you personally, one to the list. I got complains about this in 
> the past and I know I will get complaints again. I say if the majority of the 
> frequent posters on this list get annoyed with the double message (I for one 
> get highly annoyed with that. It's not that I receive one or two double 
> messages a day, in my case it's closer to a few hundred doubles a day, just 
> over the lfs mailinglists).
> 
> Sure, I know, I manage the lists so it's not your guys' fault that I'd 
> receive those doubles and I understand that. That's why if it was just me I 
> wouldn't be munging the headers. The delete key works very nicely.
> 
> But the point is still that there are a lot of people here that don't like 
> receiving double messages. Also, the just want to hit reply and expect the 
> message to end up on the mailinglist wihtout them having to remove the 
> personal author's address from the TO: or CC: field.
> 
> I know these aren't solid grounds for my doing this. I also disagree with 
> this line from that website:
> 
> <quote>
> Your subscribers don't want you to do it. Or, at least the ones who have 
> bothered to read the docs for their mailer don't want you to do it. 
> </quote>
> 
> If they don't like this, all they need to do is send a message to the list or 
> to me personally and ask if it can be disabled because it's inconvenient for 
> them. It's arrogant to think that everybody who read the docs automaticaly 
> will not like the reply-to munging. I read all the docs. I am well aware of 
> the group-reply and I hate it. I hate having to remove the author's email 
> address from the To: field when I reply to a message on a mailinglist because 
> I can understand that there are others who may not like the double messages 
> (i'm sure I'm not the only one who think it's a waste of bandwidth, disk 
> space and all that to have to download two copies of the exact same email due 
> to laziness on the sender's behalve).
> 
> So far Seth (if he's still on this list) is the only person out of a few 
> hundred on this list who complained about this. One person not liking the 
> current setup isn't enough reason for me to chagne this I'm afraid. Are there 
> any other people here who don't like the reply-to munging? (no i don't need a 
> 51% majority to make the change. A 51% majority of the frequent posters 
> usually makes me change things)
> 
> So speak up or be silent forever (well until the next person brings up this 
> discussion)
> 
> -- 
> Gerard Beekmans
> www.linuxfromscratch.org
> 
> -*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
> and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message
> 

-- 
Ed Riddle, Linuxcare, Inc.
Office: 415.354.4229, FAX 415.701.7457
ed at linuxcare.com, http://www.linuxcare.com/
Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list