Chris Louden wrote:
> On 12/3/07, James G. Sack (jim) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Chris Louden wrote:
>>> We beat this to a pulp on the oclug mailing list just a few days ago.
>>>
>>> Basically it makes sense from any logical point of view for a mailing
>>> list. Specifically that most responses generally want to reply to the
>>> entire list so that an actual conversation can take place.
>>>
>>> However setting it to reply to list by default violates RFC 2822 apparently.
>>>
>>> Which is not to say your going to hell if you do. Just that you place
>>> the ease of allowing members of the mailing list to simply hit reply
>>> to communicate with the entire list over adhering to standards.
>>>
>>> Is it really an inconvenience to hit reply to all, no. However its not
>>> what we normally do to emails so it seem like an inconvenience.
>>>
>>> Also many modern mail clients are smart and have a "reply to list"
>>> option. This does not apply to those of us that use gmail sadly.
>>>
>>> The munging that takes place isn't really going to prevent all that
>>> much spam from coming your way eventually I see no reason to use reply
>>> to poster over list.
>>>
>>> Apparently the list moderator for OCLUG and at least one guy at UCI
>>> feel that reply to poster is the way to go. I am on numerous lug
>>> mailing lists and all of them except OCLUG use reply to mailing list.
>>> However this could be just in based on the fact that they are LUGs and
>>> not dev lists or etc.
>>>
>>> If you really want to understand the reasons why just wrap you brain
>>> around RFC 2822 which is just a google search away.
>>>
>>> ...Now I'm probably going to get reamed for top posting. Which RFC is that?
>>>
>> Thanks Chris (and I forgive you).
>>
>> You know, with only a quick look at rfc 2822. I would think there might
>> be an argument that the list _is_ the sender ("re-sender", maybe), and
>> that there is no inconsistency in having reply-to be back to the list.
>>
>
> Here is the specific line.
>
> RFC 2822.
> "When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to
> which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent."
> A mailing list is not the author, and it can not change the reply-to field
> without violating the email RFC.
Yes I read that line, and can imagine arguing that the mail list _is_
the author of the re-distributed message (admittedly a stretch).
You've probably seen Dave's posted reference to
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful
which I agree is a good doc, and Dave's summary seems pretty good.
..but, I would say there is room for improvement, in standard practice
and maybe in client-smarts.
Thanks again,
..jim
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
