Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > I haven't seen a summary of this big thread, so I'm going to try to > write one. I'll focus on Reply-To munging here (orthogonal to > non-subscribers). Sorry for replying again on this thread, but I found a few more arguments: http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html Reply-To munging is against 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. --- See the word *author*; the list software is not the author. So the standard is violated. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote: > It may be common knowledge. It is not reflexive behaviour. People reach for > plain reply by habit. Happens all the time, very common. Since you are taking your assumptions as truth, I'll do the same: The only people that have a "reply" reflexive behavior are the ones that know that "reply" will work most of the time: people subscribed mostly to munged mailing lists that don't receive group mail. The people that are on non-munged mailing lists don't have that reflexive behavior; either they never developed it, or they grew out of it. And the common population don't have that reflexive behavior either; they click sometimes "reply", sometimes "reply to all", but sometimes they make mistakes, not out of reflexive behavior; they just forget. > Personally I think mail readers should have buttons labelled "Reply" (meaning > reply-to-all) and "Reply only to author" (meaning what the button labelled > "reply" usually mean now). > > It is _usually_ better to reply-to-all in ad hoc groups like the above > example, and also better to reply-to-all in one-to-one conversation > (where the buttons mean the same thing). True, but that's irrelevant, what's relevant is how most of the clients behave *right now*. > So I, for one, would advocate going back in time and changing the > "default" reply button's meaning. Then the situation that _drives_ the > common list configuration of the reply-to would not be as prevalent. I agree with that. However people can learn. Even a monkey quickly learns to press a new button for food, and stop pressing the old one which now gives electroshocks. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 12:10 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote: > Can the in-reply-to header be embedded in a mailto: link? You can only really rely on the "to" address making through a mailto link. And even then, it's only going to work when someone has a configured mail client on the system. It isn't going to work with someone using a friend's computer, a computer in a library, many computers at work (they'll probably use an inappropriate work address), and many people at home who never use a real mail client. Unfortunately, to a great number of the public, their own knowledge of email is using something like Hotmail. -- [...@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On 09Jul2010 12:03, Kwan Lowe wrote:
| On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
| wrote:
| [snip]
| > I also agree with the rest of your post (and see no reason to quote it
| > in its entirety :-), but I wonder if we're all just rearranging the
| > deckchairs on the Titanic when it comes to mailing lists. I have the
| > impression that the whole ml thing is actually a poor man's Usenet,
| > invented because everyone has mail. Years ago I tried to promote a
| > (local) News structure in my University as a medium of discussion, and
| > there was just no way I could get people to use it. The old saying "to a
| > guy with a hammer, every problem is a nail" applies here. Alternative
| > mechanisms such as bboards etc. also just didn't cut the mustard because
| > people are *very* reluctant to learn a new tool unless the benefit to
| > them (not to the institution) is immediately clear.
This, in principle, is where multi-interface systems can be handy.
Google Groups, for example and GMANE, which gateway between usenet and
mailing lists _and_ provide a forum-like web view of the messages
present the same content in different modes for various users. With a
greater or lesser success.
Supposing Mailman had a "forum" view of its archives where the reply
button was a mailto: link embedding the right subject and to: line.
People magicly get their preferred mail reader for composition and it
might "just work" fairly well. Can the in-reply-to header be embedded in
a mailto: link?
| Indeed...
| I think there are benefits to both, but I admit that I stopped using
| Usenet some years ago. Targeted lists such as this one work for me
| because the volume of mail is manageable. At the same time, I do
| notice that mailing lists tend to make silos of information. This is a
| benefit for certain specific information (e.g., purely CentOS related
| discussion) but for more general information there is a lot of
| duplication.
|
| I've always for some method of aggregating multiple mailman lists into
| a custom list. Not certain how it would work, but perhaps a keyword
| header would do the trick. I use RSS for some sites, but it would not
| work for the volume of mail in a typical list.
My current approach is to file several lists into a single mail folder ("sh",
"unix", "mutt" etc).
| Right now I am
| subscribing to multiple lists and using keywords in the Google mail
| client to create topics for my interests (e.g., Xen/KVM, image
| editing, etc..). But that means I need to keep thousands of messages
| from the dozen or so lists to which I am subscribed.
Should you care? Unless your mail volume is biting into your ISP's
bandwidth limits having thousands of messages is a win. Personally, if I
subscribe to new a mailman list my first act is often to suck down the
entire archive and unpack it into my mail folders so I can consult it
easier and see history. Mairix works fairly well for my searching needs.
Cheers,
--
Cameron Simpson DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
Netscape Messenger has displayed the message. There is no guarantee that the
content has been read or understood.
- reality check by Return-Receipt handler in NS Messenger 4.5
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On 11Jul2010 01:06, Felipe Contreras wrote: | On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Tom H wrote: | > On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Felipe Contreras | > wrote: | >> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Tim wrote: | >>> In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists | >>> are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know | >>> that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't preset for them. People | >>> will just hit reply, and expect it to do the right thing. | >> | >> I wonder, how do you think people are able to maintain private | >> conversations between multiple parties if they "will just hit reply"? | > | > I regularly have conversations with multiple friends or colleagues | > where at some point someone hits "reply" rather than "reply to all" | > and all but two are cut off. | | Exactly, so common users need to know "reply to all" in order to have | conversations with more than one person. It is *common* knowledge. | | So members of the mailing list are aware of such "reply to all" common | knowledge. It may be common knowledge. It is not reflexive behaviour. People reach for plain reply by habit. Happens all the time, very common. Personally I think mail readers should have buttons labelled "Reply" (meaning reply-to-all) and "Reply only to author" (meaning what the button labelled "reply" usually mean now). It is _usually_ better to reply-to-all in ad hoc groups like the above example, and also better to reply-to-all in one-to-one conversation (where the buttons mean the same thing). So I, for one, would advocate going back in time and changing the "default" reply button's meaning. Then the situation that _drives_ the common list configuration of the reply-to would not be as prevalent. Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ Generally, these things are dreadful, but I saw a clip the other night on tv of someone who had built a scorpion costume for their spaniel, complete with legs and a stinger. It was quite impressive. Made me want to run out and buy a dog and a some foam rubber. - David Farley -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Tom H wrote: > On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Felipe Contreras > wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Tim wrote: >>> In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists >>> are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know >>> that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't preset for them. People >>> will just hit reply, and expect it to do the right thing. >> >> I wonder, how do you think people are able to maintain private >> conversations between multiple parties if they "will just hit reply"? > > I regularly have conversations with multiple friends or colleagues > where at some point someone hits "reply" rather than "reply to all" > and all but two are cut off. Exactly, so common users need to know "reply to all" in order to have conversations with more than one person. It is *common* knowledge. So members of the mailing list are aware of such "reply to all" common knowledge. -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Tim wrote: >> In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists >> are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know >> that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't preset for them. People >> will just hit reply, and expect it to do the right thing. > > I wonder, how do you think people are able to maintain private > conversations between multiple parties if they "will just hit reply"? I regularly have conversations with multiple friends or colleagues where at some point someone hits "reply" rather than "reply to all" and all but two are cut off. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Tim wrote: > Tim: >>> In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists >>> are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know >>> that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't preset for them. People >>> will just hit reply, and expect it to do the right thing. > > Felipe Contreras: >> I wonder, how do you think people are able to maintain private >> conversations between multiple parties if they "will just hit reply"? > > Why do you think people do that? I put it to you that most people don't > do any such thing. Common users don't use mailing lists, Right? The only way they know to send mail to more than one person is by adding them to the To address list. Are you suggesting that common users only engage int 1 to 1 conversations? Or are you suggesting that they never attempt to reply to group mails? > In a discussion about using mailing lists, your > comment is so far off on a tangent that it's not funny. It is pertinent to know what the common population of email users are familiar with, as the users of the mailing list would know at least the common knowledge. ml users is a subset of common users. > Outside of a mailing list, the usual way someone sends mail to a group > is to pile all the addresses into the TO field. A few more clueful will > make use of the CC field, but usually the TO field. Replies will > usually go to all them, by default. Are you sure about that? Have you had any group conversation lately? (without a mailing list) At least in Gmail, Hotmail, and Evolution I am presented with two options: "reply" and "reply to all". If I click "reply", the mail doesn't "go to all of them". > The slightly clueful wanting to disseminate group mail without using a > list server could manually start off by having an address just for it, > posting TO it, & CCing all the other recipients. The recipients would > receive a message addressed to the list, with them on the CC list. The > recipients can reply to just the list TO address, and the owner could > deal with it (simply read it, pass it, or part of it, on to the list, > etc), or the recipients could reply to all the addresses, or to just > some of them. The messiness of that all soon leads to seeing the > advantage of using a list server that works like the Fedora one (being > quite automating, distributing all the public mail, not requiring > moderation). But common users don't do that. Right? You didn't answer my question directly: How do you think people are able to maintain private conversations between multiple parties if they "will just hit reply"? -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
Tim: >> In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists >> are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know >> that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't preset for them. People >> will just hit reply, and expect it to do the right thing. Felipe Contreras: > I wonder, how do you think people are able to maintain private > conversations between multiple parties if they "will just hit reply"? Why do you think people do that? I put it to you that most people don't do any such thing. In a discussion about using mailing lists, your comment is so far off on a tangent that it's not funny. Outside of a mailing list, the usual way someone sends mail to a group is to pile all the addresses into the TO field. A few more clueful will make use of the CC field, but usually the TO field. Replies will usually go to all them, by default. But that isn't a mailing list, in the usual meaning of the term, it doesn't have some software in the middle distributing mail around, it goes to one person, who manually handles it. And it gets a right mess when several people reply, and repeated messages get fired about all over the place, with mangled quotes of quotes, HTML crap everywhere, broken forwarded partial contents of messages (see the attached file, that wasn't attached or included in any way...). The slightly clueful wanting to disseminate group mail without using a list server could manually start off by having an address just for it, posting TO it, & CCing all the other recipients. The recipients would receive a message addressed to the list, with them on the CC list. The recipients can reply to just the list TO address, and the owner could deal with it (simply read it, pass it, or part of it, on to the list, etc), or the recipients could reply to all the addresses, or to just some of them. The messiness of that all soon leads to seeing the advantage of using a list server that works like the Fedora one (being quite automating, distributing all the public mail, not requiring moderation). I am a former BBS SysOp, I'm more than well aware of a multitude of ways mail goes around, gets used and abused. And by far the easiest way to run a list between people who know sweet Fanny Adams all about mail distribution is to a list server that sets the reply-to address to the list, so all the replies go back to the list. Those who want to make a private reply are well able to, by writing to the individual. That's what address books are for, and most modern clients will let you click on an address somewhere in a post and write or reply to it, directly. If someone's inclined to post to numerous people privately, but not all, they can pile in all the addresses that they want to, and write to them directly. They'd have to manage that manually, anyway, whether the list changed the reply-to or not, because they'd be sidestepping the list. -- [...@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:29 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> Also, people that are used to Reply-To munging can get used to >> clicking "reply to all"; it's a matter of habit, but no functionality >> is lost. > > Why does no-one ever mention "Reply To List" as the proper way to, duh, > reply to the list? Reply to list also prevents the advantages I listed as 1) and 2). And as people already mentioned; not all mail clients support that. For the behavior of the mailing list in general we should consider only what virtually everybody uses: "reply" and "reply to all". -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Tim wrote: > In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists > are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know > that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't preset for them. People > will just hit reply, and expect it to do the right thing. I wonder, how do you think people are able to maintain private conversations between multiple parties if they "will just hit reply"? -- Felipe Contreras -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 09:24 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > I wonder if we're all just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic > when it comes to mailing lists. I have the impression that the whole > ml thing is actually a poor man's Usenet, invented because everyone > has mail. I've had the same thought before, many a time. I used to use usenet a lot. It was a handy thing, you only downloaded what you want, you didn't need to keep the downloaded messages, the clients had much better management features (hide 3 day old mail, purge 2 week old cached messages, thread watch, idiot ignore, proper threading, etc., etc.), and usenet had the benefit of one subscription for all groups, and no need to expose an email address to the world (it was usually easy enough to fill in a dead address to subscribe). Though did have the problem that anybody could subscribe, and almost nobody could remove a pest; and cartloads of spam spread across all groups because anybody could post, and crosspost without limit. There were two main reasons I eventually stopped using Usenet: Pan wasn't as good as Agent, and got even worse as they removed important features from being controllable from the interface, forcing you to hand edit configuration files, if the feature still existed. And the topics I became interested in weren't on usenet. But, the whole methodology of how usenet works, and how you use it, is much better than every mailing list that I've ever used. > people are *very* reluctant to learn a new tool unless the benefit to > them (not to the institution) is immediately clear. About the only alternative accepted was the worst of the bunch; web forums. Sure, they've convenient for Googling for an answer, or using just one forum from any computer that you had to hand. But they suck big time when it come to following lots of different topics, as you have to visit each one individually, logging in separately. Have to wade through a page six miles long, bloated with a hodgepode of misused HTML tables, JavaScript, animated avatars, etc. Not to mention the extreme security risk of visiting unknown websites full of unknown gumph, while you try to fix a problem with your computer. I'm sure that, by now, most of us have come across a page with a flashing advert at the top stating "your computer is infected, click this link to scan your PC," where the statement is an outright lie, and it's a fair bet that letting it pretend to scan you will create problems. > So now we're having to consider Facebook, Twitter, you-name-it. Yech. If there was ever a more aptly named internet thing as twitter, I haven't come across it yet. Utterly useless. I had a friend ask me to set up MySpace and Facebook pages for him, and what an incredibly painful process that was. Slow as hell websites, a bewildering array of crap to wade through and turn off, much of which you couldn't turn off, and it hijacks everything you type in to keep people within their messy system. e.g. I tried including a link to his real website, and it kept on breaking it. Either not letting me post a link, inserting things into the address to break it, or passing people through a click through that warns you that following the link may be dangerous, but without there ever being any analysis of the link. i.e. It virtually defames you. -- [...@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: [snip] > I also agree with the rest of your post (and see no reason to quote it > in its entirety :-), but I wonder if we're all just rearranging the > deckchairs on the Titanic when it comes to mailing lists. I have the > impression that the whole ml thing is actually a poor man's Usenet, > invented because everyone has mail. Years ago I tried to promote a > (local) News structure in my University as a medium of discussion, and > there was just no way I could get people to use it. The old saying "to a > guy with a hammer, every problem is a nail" applies here. Alternative > mechanisms such as bboards etc. also just didn't cut the mustard because > people are *very* reluctant to learn a new tool unless the benefit to > them (not to the institution) is immediately clear. Indeed... I think there are benefits to both, but I admit that I stopped using Usenet some years ago. Targeted lists such as this one work for me because the volume of mail is manageable. At the same time, I do notice that mailing lists tend to make silos of information. This is a benefit for certain specific information (e.g., purely CentOS related discussion) but for more general information there is a lot of duplication. I've always for some method of aggregating multiple mailman lists into a custom list. Not certain how it would work, but perhaps a keyword header would do the trick. I use RSS for some sites, but it would not work for the volume of mail in a typical list. Right now I am subscribing to multiple lists and using keywords in the Google mail client to create topics for my interests (e.g., Xen/KVM, image editing, etc..). But that means I need to keep thousands of messages from the dozen or so lists to which I am subscribed. > > So now we're having to consider Facebook, Twitter, you-name-it. Yech. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 15:18 +0930, Tim wrote: > A new post button, to write a new message to that group, that wasn't > an erroneous reply to a prior post. A feature sadly lacking from mail > clients when they're working with list mail, that could quite easily > be added to the toolbar (or an always-there one activated) when a > message with list details in their headers was selected. Ironically, a few days ago I reported a minor bug in the Post Message to List function of Evolution. The bug seems to have gone unnoticed because no-one ever uses that feature. Of course, not being on the tool bar and not having a keyboard shortcut probably contribute to that, especially as the various Reply and New Message variants do have such things. Going a little OT now: I also agree with the rest of your post (and see no reason to quote it in its entirety :-), but I wonder if we're all just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic when it comes to mailing lists. I have the impression that the whole ml thing is actually a poor man's Usenet, invented because everyone has mail. Years ago I tried to promote a (local) News structure in my University as a medium of discussion, and there was just no way I could get people to use it. The old saying "to a guy with a hammer, every problem is a nail" applies here. Alternative mechanisms such as bboards etc. also just didn't cut the mustard because people are *very* reluctant to learn a new tool unless the benefit to them (not to the institution) is immediately clear. So now we're having to consider Facebook, Twitter, you-name-it. Yech. poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 09:14 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > Why does no-one ever mention "Reply To List" as the proper way to, > duh, reply to the list? Probably because it's hardly ever seen as an option to the user (it's hidden, or simply not offered). Mail clients are often quite awful, and it tended to be the older usenet clients that gave you all the right features in a sensible manner. e.g. Back when I used ForteInc Agent, many years ago, when you are reading from a news group, the interface gave you: A new post button, to write a new message to that group, that wasn't an erroneous reply to a prior post. A feature sadly lacking from mail clients when they're working with list mail, that could quite easily be added to the toolbar (or an always-there one activated) when a message with list details in their headers was selected. A reply button, to reply to the poster directly (or their reply-to, if the poster had set one). A follow-up button, to reply back to the group. Which replies to the group, and doesn't send unnecessary personal posts at the same time. And, not to mention, that it did quoting properly (wrapped well, without mangling all the > prefix indicators). The two replying options did let you easily do what you intended, and didn't rope in additional functions at the same time (i.e. sending out replies in multiple directions, simultaneously). It's only by testing that I can see what reply to all will do on any client, and usually it doesn't do what I'd logically expect. i.e. If I were to hit reply to all on your post, now, it'd make sense that it replied to the list, and to the poster. That's the most obvious definition of "all" in this case (all addresses). But it only prepares a reply to the list. Other clients that I've tried this with behave differently. And therein lay a big problem - a particularly named feature doing different things, when it should really always do the same thing. And for the sake of this argument, I don't care what it's supposed to do, only what's the most logical conclusion to make about what you think it's supposed to do, and what it actually does, are the main concernts. In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't preset for them. People will just hit reply, and expect it to do the right thing. If it weren't for the fact that we'd lose much, probably most, of the list traffic to private replies, I'd object less about not presetting the reply-to with the list address. I've seen what happens with lists where replies go privately. I've said it already (they have the same questions over and over, and no replies), and you can find it for yourself whenever you go googling to try and solve a problem. You find a page after page where someone has asked your question, and there's no public answer, at all. It's not a supposition, it's real. Yes, it would be nice that replies to your postings went through the list still addressed /to/ you, so that your client can let you know that you've had a reply (as we used to get with usenet, and various BBS mail systems). However, that only works with the first reply. Other replies, that were actually a reply to a second party in the thread, if it ever managed to get that far, may also be pertinent to you, but will not be addressed to you, and won't be flagged by your mail client, nor sent to you if you're not subscribed. Usenet clients, and some mail clients, covered that event quite neatly with the watch thread function. You enabled it on a thread that took your interest, and all child threads from that point on were watched. Forks of the thread from before you started watching it were not. But all of them rely on one thing - you have to be subscribed. Whether you (generically, not Patrick in particular) like it or not, there are *good* reasons to set list mail's reply-to headers to the list. Particularly on lists where you want mail to stay in the public arena, with lists that will be used by people who know nothing about email intricacies, with lists where people with a problem need as much help as they can get. It is the simplest and most effective way to make a mailing list work. It's no good arguing that people would soon learn to reply differently, because they would not. The hit and run questioners would not, they're not around long enough to learn. Even the regulars are quite unlikely to learn, given the example of the number of people who don't/won't learn to create a new message rather than reply to an unrelated one. -- [...@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelin
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > I haven't seen a summary of this big thread, so I'm going to try to > write one. I'll focus on Reply-To munging here (orthogonal to > non-subscribers). An unsurprisingly biased and inaccurate summary... -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:43:10 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > That surely is up to the receiver, not the sender. Furthermore, as it > will vary from list to list it seems impractical to have to set it > individually for each post if the MUA doesn't support it automatically > (Evolution doesn't). Yeah, you really need support in the clients for this to work well. Mutt has a way to do this, but typically I don't use it as I find getting separately addressed useful. (This used to be especially true on the postgres lists about 5 years ago. They had a large latency at that time.) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 10:45 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:14:23 -0430, > Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:29 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > Also, people that are used to Reply-To munging can get used to > > > clicking "reply to all"; it's a matter of habit, but no functionality > > > is lost. > > > > Why does no-one ever mention "Reply To List" as the proper way to, duh, > > reply to the list? > > It isn't always the case that you want to reply to the list. When you want > that, then sure that is something you can do. Only if the people you reply to include the List-* headers. For example, you didn't, so I can't use Reply-To-list for this reply (without manually munging the headers of course). This forces me to use Reply-To_All or to start cutting-and-pasting addesses. I guess that's another reason it isn't so popular. > But you don't always know if people are subscribed or not and there may be > cases where people like getting a second message directly to them. > > The proper way to indicate that you don't want separate direct copies in > addition to the list copy is to set an appropriate mail-followup-to header. > Then things work automatically and people don't need to guess your intentions, > remember them or notice them buried in the signature part of an email message. That surely is up to the receiver, not the sender. Furthermore, as it will vary from list to list it seems impractical to have to set it individually for each post if the MUA doesn't support it automatically (Evolution doesn't). poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:14:23 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:29 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Also, people that are used to Reply-To munging can get used to > > clicking "reply to all"; it's a matter of habit, but no functionality > > is lost. > > Why does no-one ever mention "Reply To List" as the proper way to, duh, > reply to the list? It isn't always the case that you want to reply to the list. When you want that, then sure that is something you can do. But you don't always know if people are subscribed or not and there may be cases where people like getting a second message directly to them. The proper way to indicate that you don't want separate direct copies in addition to the list copy is to set an appropriate mail-followup-to header. Then things work automatically and people don't need to guess your intentions, remember them or notice them buried in the signature part of an email message. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 10:13 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote: > On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:14:23 -0430 > Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > > Why does no-one ever mention "Reply To List" as the proper way to, duh, > > reply to the list? > > Probably because all the mail clients I've seen have it hidden > somewhere down inside some obscure pull-down and users don't > even know such a thing exists or their mail client supports > it (I certainly didn't know claws had a "reply to list" till > the last time this thread came up here, someone mentioned > it, and I actually went looking for it). I agree with your assessment of why many people don't use it. It's also the case that some webmail systems (e.g. Gmail) don't even support it -- in fact they seem to have few features for mailing list support. However I was mainly wondering why no-one on this particular thread (which is after all about mailing lists) has mentioned it either. Looks like even knowledgeable users don't know about it, despite the List-* headers being a standard. poc PS This reply sent using Reply-To-List in Evolution (Ctrl-L), as are all my replies whenever possible. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:14:23 -0430 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > Why does no-one ever mention "Reply To List" as the proper way to, duh, > reply to the list? Probably because all the mail clients I've seen have it hidden somewhere down inside some obscure pull-down and users don't even know such a thing exists or their mail client supports it (I certainly didn't know claws had a "reply to list" till the last time this thread came up here, someone mentioned it, and I actually went looking for it). -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:29 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > Also, people that are used to Reply-To munging can get used to > clicking "reply to all"; it's a matter of habit, but no functionality > is lost. Why does no-one ever mention "Reply To List" as the proper way to, duh, reply to the list? poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Reply-To munging summary (was: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers)
Hi,
I haven't seen a summary of this big thread, so I'm going to try to
write one. I'll focus on Reply-To munging here (orthogonal to
non-subscribers).
Before starting it's worth to keep in mind that munging is a *default*
that is possible to manually change, and some clients have the option
to ignore it. However, the people who do that are the _minority_; most
people just hit reply, and many use typical clients. In order to fully
understand the benefits of one method over the other, we shall only
consider the behavior of the mailing list as a whole, not what some
particular individual might or might not do.
For example, when analyzing personal level indicators, an advantage of
not munging; it's not useful to concentrate on the fact that *some*
people might ignore the Reply-To header, and therefore the indicator
would appear for that particular mail. The fact remains that for most
of the posts in the mailing list, the feature will not work. IOW: what
is important is whether or not the user can rely on the feature.
== Advantages ==
1) Personal level indicators.
Gmail has a feature that places a neat marker (">") near the subject
of the mail so that you can see directly that the mail was addressed
to you. This is specially a nice feature in high traffic mailing
lists. Here's a screenshot:
http://people.freedesktop.org/~felipec/l-o-personal-marker.png
mutt can be configured to have similar highlights:
color index brightwhite black "~p" # to me
2) Recipient filtering
It's possible to search say 'to:linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org to:me';
with munging it's not possible because the To header is automatically
changed to the mailing list.
Similarly, it's possible to have a filter rule for all mail from
linux-kernel to move to a certain folder, but have an exception for
mail addressed to the user, which might go directly to the inbox.
This way, both with personal level indicators and recipient filtering,
it's much easier to quickly be alerted of incoming mail addressed to
oneself.
3) Consistency
When there's Reply-To munging, people might choose to ignore it (if
their client supports) that. So in a typical munged mailing list you
have both munged and non-munged posts.
This is not a strong argument, but it's useful to keep in mind while
reading the non-issues below.
There are other advantages, not not relevant in the current Fedora context.
== Disadvantages ==
1) Inadvertently forgetting to "reply to all"
When Reply-To munging is not used, the user is presented (in typical
clients) with the option to either "reply" or "reply to all".
Sometimes the user will select the wrong one, which is an annoyance.
The severity of this problem is impossible to calculate as it depends
on background of the members of each mailing list, which might be very
varied, and in flux.
=== Non issues ===
Many arguments were presented as disadvantages of munging which are
not valid IMO and I presented reasons for that (as I'm doing here).
1) Ignorance of "reply to all"
While there might be some rare cases where the user doesn't know about
"reply to all" (i.e. mail newbies, grandmas, etc.), the typical mail
user is well aware of "reply to all" as it's the only way to keep a
conversation between more than two persons. It's probably one of the
first things to learn.
Personally I have never seen cases of this, and nobody has provided
evidence. If there's any cases of this, they are probably very
marginal.
2) Two copies of the same mail
When a mail is not munged, the original author would be in the To
field, and the list on Cc. If the author is subscribed on the mailing
list (the only case we care about here), then the author would receive
a direct copy and another copy from the list.
However, this is not the case as mailing list servers are aware of
these cases and don't send the list copy. For example, mailman has an
option "Avoid duplicate copies of messages" which does precisely that,
and is enabled by default.
This was agreed to not be an issue.
3) Unwanted direct addressing
There was an argument that some people didn't want to be directly
addressed and wanted mails addressed to the mailing list only.
There was no mention of why people would want that, or any evidence of
such cases (if there's any).
Moreover, Reply-To munging doesn't prevent them from being directly
Cc'ed (that header filed is not munged), they can manually be added to
the To field, or somebody might ignore the Reply-To header.
At best this is a policy issue, not related to Reply-To munging.
4) FWD noise
If the user mistakenly misses the "reply to all" option, the mail is
sent privately, then the user might notice and choose to fwd the mail
back to the mailing list.
This is a double mistake by the user, the proper way to correct the
original mistake is to send the mail again properly, and as to discard
the private copy.
Just like top-posting; this is solved with policy.
5) Mail escaping
This is defined as mail that is sent privately by mi
