On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 12:33, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 11:16, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 09:24, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 10:02, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > > > > I checked a few other ASF lists and they all have Reply-To set either > > > > to the current list or to dev@ for lists such as commits@ and > > > > notifications@ > > > > > > I had a look at that too. > > > But IMO > > > * "dev" and > > > * "commits", "notifications", ... > > > are different cases in that the former relays messages that originated > > > from real people while the latter comes from a "bot" and it would make > > > no sense to reply to it. > > > > Yes. That's deliberate, for the reason you state. > > The point is that all the lists have Reply-To set. > > Sorry, I don't follow the reasoning; why should the setting be > the same for two different cases?
Huh? The setting is not the same. They all have Reply-To set, however as I wrote, the actual setting is not the same for all the cases. > > > Gilles > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 08:47, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -1 > > > > > > > > > > Changing the reply-to configuration increases the chances of message > > > > > threads being moved off-list by accident. I am concerned about the > > > > > risk > > > > > of harm to the community that that represents. > > > > > > > > > > I vote to leave the current list configuration as it. I do not see any > > > > > of the issues described. (I'm using Thunderbird.) > > > > > > > > > > On 11/02/2019 08:24, Eitan Adler wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > The mailing list dev@commons.apache.org appears to always and > > > > > > forcibly > > > > > > set the header Reply-To: Commons Developers List > > > > > > <dev@commons.apache.org>. I had asked INFRA to remove this remove > > > > > > the > > > > > > reply-to munging. They asked for documented consensus before making > > > > > > this change. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is broken for multiple reasons. > > > > > > > > > > > > It violates RFC 2822 which requires that reply-to MUST only be used > > > > > > for when " ... the author of the message suggests that replies be > > > > > > sent." > > > > > > > > > > > > While this should be enough, it is useful to explain some of the > > > > > > reasoning the standard is the way it is: > > > > > > > > > > > > - It breaks MUAs that have "reply to all" and "reply" (and maybe > > > > > > even > > > > > > "reply to list"). In doing so, having this setting greatly increases > > > > > > the chance of privacy violations by people that expect the mailing > > > > > > lists to act normally. If you're trying to send a private reply > > > > > > using > > > > > > the normal method to reply, the message will be made public. > > > > > > > > > > I don't see this. > > > > > > > > > > Reply - > original poster > > > > > Reply List -> list > > > > > Reply All -> List and OP > > > > > > > > > > > - It adds nothing: by means of copy and paste a private reply is > > > > > > still > > > > > > possible, just annoying, and a workaround for a broken mailing list > > > > > > > > > > No need for this workaround in Thunderbird. > > > > > > > > > > > - Some mail readers provide 'personal mail' indicators. This only > > > > > > triggered when you are on the CC or TO lines. The 'feature' breaks > > > > > > this. > > > > > > - Some people prefer mail CCed to them as well as the mailing list, > > > > > > especially if reading a mailing list is lower priority than personal > > > > > > mail. > > > > > > > > > > Both the above require that replies are sent to both the list and the > > > > > OP. While some people might prefer this, others do not. And we have no > > > > > way of telling which list subscribers fall into which camp. > > > > > > > > > > Mail clients usually have other ways to mark threads that are of > > > > > interest . > > > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As such I'd like to vote that we fix the dev@ mailing list > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 = the mailing list misconfiguration will be removed > > > > > > -1 = the mailing list will continue to remain broken > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Eitan Adler > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
