Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working
On 01/24/2018 09:16 PM, Jordan Brown wrote: I don't understand this statement. Or, I don't understand how it disagrees with what I said. I don't really care whether the MUA has a "Reply List" button that does something list-specific. "Reply" should go to the author; "Reply All" should go to all of the original recipients. It's been a long day, let's just move past. Of course, and I'm free to participate or not participate in mailing lists based on their policies. And although I normally try to resist this argument (and don't always succeed), somebody explicitly suggested trying to define a best practice... and if there's ever a time to say what one thinks the best practice should be, that's it. That logic seems reasonable to me. Sure. That's what "Reply All" means. Like you said, it's a matter of user education There is a distinct difference in replying to all and replying to the list. Namely the list is a subset of all. Let's look at a couple of e-mail messages. (And not bothering to put in real addresses, or the headers that the mailing list might magically add.) From: Sam To: Joe, Dave, Jordan If I hit Reply, the message goes to Sam. If I hit Reply All, the message goes to Sam, Joe, and Dave. (And maybe, depending on my MUA, to me too.) Any controversy there? Nope. Now the second message: From: Sam To: MailingList In the scheme I prefer: If I hit Reply, the message goes to Sam. If I hit Reply All, the message goes to Sam and the mailing list. This seems totally consistent with the behavior above. Sure. In the scheme you prefer (as I understand it): If I hit Reply, the message goes to the mailing list. If I hit Reply All, the message goes to the mailing list. Using the pseudo headers you provided, hitting Reply would go back to Sam. If there was a Reply-To header, and it was set to the mailing list, the message would go to the mailing list. There's no way to get the message to go just to Sam (absent cutting and pasting). If Sam isn't on the mailing list, he won't even get a copy. Based on how I think /discussion/ mailing lists /should/ operate, I'm perfectly fine with that. I'd go so far as to say that /discussion/ mailing lists could remove any and all From / Reply-To / To / Sender / et al headers from the message. - I think the message that I receive as a mailing list subscriber /should/ be /from/ /the/ /list/. (I'm distinctly ignoring any copy that comes to me as a To / CC / BCC as I tend to ignore them and only act on the copy from the mailing list.) I view the mailing list as an entity that is originating the copy that I receive. As such, my replies should go back to said entity. Note: This is my opinion of /discussion/ mailing lists. - Broadcast lists (a.k.a. expansion lists) are different and should make no modification to the message content at all. But most importantly, the behavior is not consistent with the non-mailing-list behavior above. I think this behavior is perfectly consistent with my view of /discussion/ mailing lists. Now another message: From: Sam To: MailingList, Joe, Dave, Jordan In my scheme, again, Reply goes to Sam; Reply All goes to everybody. Consistent with the behavior above. In your scheme, Reply goes to ... ? Well, it depends. If this is the copy of the message that I got through the mailing list, Reply will go to the mailing list, Joe, and Dave. It will depend on how the mailing list is configured. In my ideal scenario for a /discussion/ mailing list, the reply would /only/ go to the mailing list. If, on the other hand, this is the copy that I got directly, Reply will go to Sam. Reply All goes to... if it's the mailing list copy, it goes to the mailing list, Joe, and Dave; if it's the direct copy, then Sam, the mailing list, Joe, and Dave. For the two replies based on the mailing list copy, the message won't go to Sam unless he's on the mailing list. I feel sorry for Sam and think that he should subscribe to the mailing list. But s/he has that option. And another: From: Sam To: MailingListA, MailingListB For fun, let's assume that I'm on both mailing lists. Okay. My scheme: Reply goes to Sam; Reply All goes to Sam and both mailing lists. Consistent with the behavior above. Your scheme: Reply: If this is the copy I got through list A, it goes to list A; if it's the copy I got through list B, it goes to list B. Reply All: goes to both mailing lists. Only goes to Sam if he's on one of the mailing lists. Sure. Now, when you consider all of those cases, which scheme is simpler and easier to understand? Which is less likely to have messages going to unexpected groups of people, when you spend all day responding to a mix of all of the types? I understand your logic. It seems reasonable enough. I still disagree with it. - By the way the sun is purple. ;-) We can agree to disagree. And yes, thos
Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working
On 1/24/2018 4:48 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > On 01/24/2018 10:40 AM, Jordan Brown wrote: >> If a message had only List-Post and From, that wouldn't get the >> result that I would want. I would want Reply to go to the author. As >> a list member, I consider it an absolute requirement that Reply go to >> the author and only to the author; I boycott any list that directs >> Reply to the list. (I've dropped off the "staff" list for an event I >> was participating in for this reason.) > > I think that the difference of Reply vs Reply-List applies to your > statement. I don't understand this statement. Or, I don't understand how it disagrees with what I said. I don't really care whether the MUA has a "Reply List" button that does something list-specific. "Reply" should go to the author; "Reply All" should go to all of the original recipients. > You are entitled to your opinion of how a mailing list should operate > and free to configure any mailing lists you manage accordingly. Of course, and I'm free to participate or not participate in mailing lists based on their policies. And although I normally try to resist this argument (and don't always succeed), somebody explicitly suggested trying to define a best practice... and if there's ever a time to say what one thinks the best practice should be, that's it. >> I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the >> author, the list, and any other To or CC destinations. I simply >> can't understand any other answer. I don't understand why anybody >> feels a need for "Reply List". > > Lack of understanding does not mean that other ways are invalid. > > See my comment above for why I want replies to my message to > /discussion/ lists to go to the list. Sure. That's what "Reply All" means. Like you said, it's a matter of user education :-) Let's look at a couple of e-mail messages. (And not bothering to put in real addresses, or the headers that the mailing list might magically add.) From: Sam To: Joe, Dave, Jordan If I hit Reply, the message goes to Sam. If I hit Reply All, the message goes to Sam, Joe, and Dave. (And maybe, depending on my MUA, to me too.) Any controversy there? Now the second message: From: Sam To: MailingList In the scheme I prefer: If I hit Reply, the message goes to Sam. If I hit Reply All, the message goes to Sam and the mailing list. This seems totally consistent with the behavior above. In the scheme you prefer (as I understand it): If I hit Reply, the message goes to the mailing list. If I hit Reply All, the message goes to the mailing list. There's no way to get the message to go just to Sam (absent cutting and pasting). If Sam isn't on the mailing list, he won't even get a copy. But most importantly, the behavior is not consistent with the non-mailing-list behavior above. Now another message: From: Sam To: MailingList, Joe, Dave, Jordan In my scheme, again, Reply goes to Sam; Reply All goes to everybody. Consistent with the behavior above. In your scheme, Reply goes to ... ? Well, it depends. If this is the copy of the message that I got through the mailing list, Reply will go to the mailing list, Joe, and Dave. If, on the other hand, this is the copy that I got directly, Reply will go to Sam. Reply All goes to... if it's the mailing list copy, it goes to the mailing list, Joe, and Dave; if it's the direct copy, then Sam, the mailing list, Joe, and Dave. For the two replies based on the mailing list copy, the message won't go to Sam unless he's on the mailing list. And another: From: Sam To: MailingListA, MailingListB For fun, let's assume that I'm on both mailing lists. My scheme: Reply goes to Sam; Reply All goes to Sam and both mailing lists. Consistent with the behavior above. Your scheme: Reply: If this is the copy I got through list A, it goes to list A; if it's the copy I got through list B, it goes to list B. Reply All: goes to both mailing lists. Only goes to Sam if he's on one of the mailing lists. Now, when you consider all of those cases, which scheme is simpler and easier to understand? Which is less likely to have messages going to unexpected groups of people, when you spend all day responding to a mix of all of the types? And yes, those are all very real cases. I expect that if I go through my work e-mail for the last day I'll find examples of each, and I would be virtually certain if I looked through a week. (And that includes the "Sam isn't a member of the mailing list" variants; those are *very* common.) > In fact, I really dislike receiving the CC when messages are going to > the list that I'm subscribed to. Yes, that's a nuisance, but I think it's not nearly as bad as the alternatives. It costs me a tap of the Delete key; it doesn't send my private criticism of the author to his boss. What's really needed there is a MUA that hides duplicates, though that's tricky when mailing list software munge
Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working
On 1/24/2018 12:50 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > I think there's an obvious algorithm for "smart single reply": > > 1. If there is a Reply-To, address the message to Reply-To. > 2. Else if there is a List-Post, address the message to List-Post. > 3. Else address the message to From. (If there's no From, the > message violates the most basic RFCs so all bets are off.) > > Assuming that no lists munge Reply-To, I think you'll agree that this > is what you want 90% of the time (conservative estimate). There are > some issues with this algorithm in practice: If a message had only List-Post and From, that wouldn't get the result that I would want. I would want Reply to go to the author. As a list member, I consider it an absolute requirement that Reply go to the author and only to the author; I boycott any list that directs Reply to the list. (I've dropped off the "staff" list for an event I was participating in for this reason.) I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the author, the list, and any other To or CC destinations. I simply can't understand any other answer. I don't understand why anybody feels a need for "Reply List". How that translates into headers that the mailing list software generates, shrug. Yes, the mailing list software could always force in a Reply-To: to get the semantics that I want, but why should it add that noise? Or the mailing list software could omit List-Post, which I suppose would be fine too (since I don't understand why you would want it). Before DMARC munging, I could have (mis)configured my MUA to ignore Reply-To and mostly gotten the right semantics even on an evil Reply-To: list. With DMARC munging that's no longer an option; I need Reply-To: on DMARC-munged lists. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working
On 01/24/2018 10:40 AM, Jordan Brown wrote: On 1/24/2018 12:50 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: I think there's an obvious algorithm for "smart single reply": 1. If there is a Reply-To, address the message to Reply-To. 2. Else if there is a List-Post, address the message to List-Post. 3. Else address the message to From. (If there's no From, the message violates the most basic RFCs so all bets are off.) Assuming that no lists munge Reply-To, I think you'll agree that this is what you want 90% of the time (conservative estimate). There are some issues with this algorithm in practice: If a message had only List-Post and From, that wouldn't get the result that I would want. I would want Reply to go to the author. As a list member, I consider it an absolute requirement that Reply go to the author and only to the author; I boycott any list that directs Reply to the list. (I've dropped off the "staff" list for an event I was participating in for this reason.) I think that the difference of Reply vs Reply-List applies to your statement. You are entitled to your opinion of how a mailing list should operate and free to configure any mailing lists you manage accordingly. I prefer that discussion mailing lists direct replies to the mailing list so that other subscribers are aware of and can participate in the discussions. I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the author, the list, and any other To or CC destinations. I simply can't understand any other answer. I don't understand why anybody feels a need for "Reply List". Lack of understanding does not mean that other ways are invalid. See my comment above for why I want replies to my message to /discussion/ lists to go to the list. In fact, I really dislike receiving the CC when messages are going to the list that I'm subscribed to. How that translates into headers that the mailing list software generates, shrug. Yes, the mailing list software could always force in a Reply-To: to get the semantics that I want, but why should it add that noise? Or the mailing list software could omit List-Post, which I suppose would be fine too (since I don't understand why you would want it). I thought the List-Post: header was more informational about how to post messages to the mailing list. - I thought MUAs started offering an option to use the List-Post header to purposefully send replies to the list instead of the author (From:|Reply-To:). Before DMARC munging, I could have (mis)configured my MUA to ignore Reply-To and mostly gotten the right semantics even on an evil Reply-To: list. With DMARC munging that's no longer an option; I need Reply-To: on DMARC-munged lists. How can you tell the difference between me setting the Reply-To: to be the Mailman Users mailing list (which I have done for this email) and the mailing list manager doing it? What do you do in these cases? Not sending the reply to the list is contrary to my desires (evident by me setting the Reply-To:) or the mailing list owners desires if they choose to munge the reply. And yes, the mailing list is going to munge the From for DMARC reasons. -- Grant. . . . unix || die -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working
On 01/24/2018 01:50 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: I'd appreciate if those who have strong opinions on this would take a look at the analysis below and tell me if I'm missing something. If not, maybe I'll write up a BCP (non-standards-track RFC[1]) so it's on record. See my comments inline below. This proposal actually has a history going back to about 2005. I didn't do anything about it because I got a lot of pushback from MUA writers, and writing RFCs is worse than writing PEPs (Pythonistas are either sane or go away soon, not so for IETF mailing lists . But if its still an issue maybe it's worth the effort. I think there's an obvious algorithm for "smart single reply": I doubt that's the case. 1. If there is a Reply-To, address the message to Reply-To. Baring other influences, this is where the author or the message sender (if it's someone other than the author) wants replies to go to. 2. Else if there is a List-Post, address the message to List-Post. I don't think that it's appropriate to always prefer the List-Post over the From ~> Reply-To. MUAs (are starting to) have separate functions for reply to From / Reply-To vs reply to list. I can see a case for a broadcast mailing list that's open for all members to post to where neither From nor Reply-To munging takes place. The author can send from one address (From) and want replies to go elsewhere (Reply-To) while the MLM adds a List-Post header to comply with other standards. I feel like a reply to such a message should go to the Reply-To (as set by the author) and not the List-Post as set by the MLM. Reply-List in such a case is a distinctly different operation. I can also see a case where a message author might choose to (dynamically) set the Reply-To to something like "Reply-To: Please reply to the Mailman-Users mailing list. " 3. Else address the message to From. (If there's no From, the message violates the most basic RFCs so all bets are off.) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sounds like the classic case of "undefined behavior" to me. Assuming that no lists munge Reply-To, I think you'll agree that this is what you want 90% of the time (conservative estimate). There are some issues with this algorithm in practice: I disagree for a number of reasons. Some of which are outlined above. 1. Some lists should not encourage reply-to-list (eg, for privacy reasons). This can be worked around by omitting List-Post, or solved by additional protocol so that the list sets a header field saying "don't automatically reply here just because there's a List-Post. Given how conservative MUA writers are, I'd say "KISS" for these, and make users cut-n-paste. Most of the time a reply-to-list here is probably thread hijacking anyway. I see an opportunity for a "List-Reply-To" header that could indicate if /replies/ should go to the list (List-Post) or the author (Reply-To|From). I suppose that it could also be possible to specify an alternate address for replies to go to, i.e. for thread tracking or something like that. This would still leave us in the situation where MUAs need to differentiate between a generic Reply and a Reply-to-List behavior. Plus the associated action for the reply keyboard sequence. I feel like this is /mostly/ a user education issue. There may be some room for UI / UX improvement. Ultimately it's up to the MTA to do what the user wans done. Consider the following: From: Author To: List Reply-To: Author List-Post: List Where should replies to the author go to? Where should replies to the list go to? Where should the (undefined) "reply" go to? I don't think that it's likely for the MTA to automagically know what needs to be done. 2. Some users will want to override the algorithm and reply specifically to list or author. MUAs should provide buttons or menu items for these infrequently used options. I think it is wrong for us to ascribe frequency of use for other users. Just because I do something some way does not mean that others do so with the same frequency, or even the same thing. I personally use Reply List more than I use Reply (Author [From|Reply-To]). 3. Your favorite list munges Reply-To. Nothing changes here, people are still going to be embarrassed by sending remarks intended to be private to a broad audience, and in some configurations of Mailman the original Reply-To or the From will get dupes. At least you can override with a reply-to-author function. I feel like this is a user education issue. Sadly, pain of embarrassment is a good teacher. I don't understand what Thunderbird thought they were doing. I think they were trying to apply a technological solution to what I believe is fundamentally a user education issue. -- Grant. . . . unix || die -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: htt
Re: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list server
Peter Shute writes: > I wonder how much dangerous javascript in email is these days. The #infosec and #bitcoin tweeps I follow are all a-twitter about javascript that mines bitcoins, which is pretty seriously energy- and cpu-intensive. (They have opinions at opposite poles though. :-) It really depends on your list, though. If very little spam (by that I mean less than one per quarter) gets through, and you don't have Javascript tricksters among the posters, I don't see why this would be a major worry. Your paranoia level is your choice, though, and it is less risky if you have a few people with skills who can identify problematic mail and tell you about it. Steve -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working
I'd appreciate if those who have strong opinions on this would take a look at the analysis below and tell me if I'm missing something. If not, maybe I'll write up a BCP (non-standards-track RFC[1]) so it's on record. This proposal actually has a history going back to about 2005. I didn't do anything about it because I got a lot of pushback from MUA writers, and writing RFCs is worse than writing PEPs (Pythonistas are either sane or go away soon, not so for IETF mailing lists ;-). But if its still an issue maybe it's worth the effort. Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users writes: > What I find interesting is that mail.override_list_reply_to is set to > True by default in my copy of Thunderbird, 52.5.0. I think there's an obvious algorithm for "smart single reply": 1. If there is a Reply-To, address the message to Reply-To. 2. Else if there is a List-Post, address the message to List-Post. 3. Else address the message to From. (If there's no From, the message violates the most basic RFCs so all bets are off.) Assuming that no lists munge Reply-To, I think you'll agree that this is what you want 90% of the time (conservative estimate). There are some issues with this algorithm in practice: 1. Some lists should not encourage reply-to-list (eg, for privacy reasons). This can be worked around by omitting List-Post, or solved by additional protocol so that the list sets a header field saying "don't automatically reply here just because there's a List-Post. Given how conservative MUA writers are, I'd say "KISS" for these, and make users cut-n-paste. Most of the time a reply-to-list here is probably thread hijacking anyway. 2. Some users will want to override the algorithm and reply specifically to list or author. MUAs should provide buttons or menu items for these infrequently used options. 3. Your favorite list munges Reply-To. Nothing changes here, people are still going to be embarrassed by sending remarks intended to be private to a broad audience, and in some configurations of Mailman the original Reply-To or the From will get dupes. At least you can override with a reply-to-author function. I don't understand what Thunderbird thought they were doing. Steve Footnotes: [1] MUA UI best practices like this technically don't have anything to do with Internet protocol semantics. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
