Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> writes: > On Wed, 17 Apr 2013, Jozsef Bakosi wrote: > >> Can you guys please CC jbakosi at lanl.gov? Thanks, J > > Mailing lists are setup that way. The default is: subscribe to > participate, and reply-to: list. So cc:ing automatically doesn't work.
If everyone used mailers that did group replies correctly, then we would always preserve Cc's in list discussions and the list would not munge the Reply-to header. Then people could subscribe and turn off list mail, or they could filter all mail to the list that didn't directly Cc them. This is a great way to manage high-volume mailing lists. You can even allow anonymous posting to the mailing list, which is what the Git list and many other open source/technical lists do. This is ruined by munging Reply-to because many/most mailers drop the >From address in a group-reply when Reply-to is set. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html The problem is that an awful lot of mailers/users don't automatically do group replies to mailing list messages, causing the list Cc to be dropped. We have this problem with petsc-maint in that several emails per day are reminding people to keep petsc-maint Cc'd in the reply. Personally, I would rather turn off Reply-to munging and use a canned reply instructing users to resend their email to the list with all Cc's included (i.e., use "reply-all" when replying to the list). Almost all mailers can be configured to make this the default. I think this change would cause more people to ask questions on the mailing list where it becomes searchable than on petsc-maint where the reply helps only one person. Satish argued the other way when we discussed this a few years ago: http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/2010-March/002489.html