Folks:
I'm currently administering the tech & dev lists & would gladly
reconfigure if the preponderance of opinion is in favor. I'm by no means
a mail admin, and was following the recommendations of the GNU mailman
docs, which I reproduce here:
reply_goes_to_list (general): Where are replies to list messages
directed? Poster is strongly recommended for most mailing lists.
This option controls what Mailman does to the Reply-To: header in
messages flowing through this mailing list. When set to Poster, no
Reply-To: header is added by Mailman, although if one is present in the
original message, it is not stripped. Setting this value to either This
list or Explicit address causes Mailman to insert a specific Reply-To:
header in all messages, overriding the header in the original message if
necessary (Explicit address inserts the value of reply_to_address).
There are many reasons not to introduce or override the Reply-To:
header. One is that some posters depend on their own Reply-To: settings
to convey their valid return address. Another is that modifying
Reply-To: makes it much more difficult to send private replies. See
`Reply-To' Munging Considered Harmful for a general discussion of this
issue. See Reply-To Munging Considered Useful for a dissenting opinion.
Some mailing lists have restricted posting privileges, with a parallel
list devoted to discussions. Examples are `patches' or `checkin' lists,
where software changes are posted by a revision control system, but
discussion about the changes occurs on a developers mailing list. To
support these types of mailing lists, select Explicit address and set
the Reply-To: address below to point to the parallel list.
Where are replies to list messages
directed? Poster is strongly
recommended for most mailing lists.
Poster
This list
Explicit
address
If anyone has further input, please share with the list.
Thanks,
Richard R
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 11:38 -0500, Dorothea Salo wrote:
> > The result of a missing reply-to header is that
> > you have to use the reply-all function of your
> > mail client to answer back to the list, which
> > seems unnatural. In most cases, answers seem
> > to be sent in private mail as implied by the
> > missing header.
> >
> > As of my perception, this makes the list *more*
> > noisy as required and renders the list archive
> > less useful. Let me explain.
>
> I agree. Useful responses are not publicly archived, which means they
> are not searchable, which means we get the same questions over and
> over -- not because there is no answer, but because there is no
> *public* answer.
>
> I would very much appreciate the reconfiguration of dspace-tech to
> reply-to-list instead of reply-to-sender.
>
> Dorothea
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
DSpace-tech mailing list
DSpace-tech@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-tech
