Dont quite get you there, but its pretty simple,
we are on a list, having an open discussion, if you reply to me, or I,
you, then it should go by the list, on this list very simple, its
configured correctly by having reply-to set, to the list, problem does
not exist, if you reply, or reply-all, at least when I do in
evolution, it only sends to lists. some clients and free mail
providers, it sends to list, and to the author on reply-all evolution
does allow reply to list if I hit control-l for those brain dead
lists that do not set reply-to headers, if in that case you hit
reply-all to get it to list, yes, else reply, direct to sender.
Hey! I like lists without Reply-To set. I don't think they're braindead,
nor am I braindead myself to think that.
However, your point is valid. If you *really* want to keep all
discussion public for a list, Reply-To is a way to achieve this. It
makes private replies very difficult, which might be what you want.
It does cause a few problems, though. One is that authors can't set the
Reply-To header the way they want to (and, as was pointed out earlier,
they standardly have the 'right' to set that header).
I think you're right that different clients do different things with
Reply All.
Arguably, direct replies also cause problems. For example, the Reply
List button, which as I said earlier, is in a lot of ways my "go to"
button for lists, has problems with those--direct replies don't go via
the list, so don't have a List-Post header, and Reply List doesn't work.
I need to use Reply All, which sends both to the list and the individual
I'm replying to. That's often OK, though, because they replied to me in
that fashion. Nevertheless, it's not always what I want, so sometimes
some manual adjustment is in order.
AFAIC, list posts are like usenet, if you partake in a public
discussion then your reply should go public, you may give an answer to
a real sticky problem, no point in only one person getting the answer,
it should be on-list so others are aware, and also it can be archived
so others with same problem in future can find answer. If you think
your reply is not fit for list, or, you may want information you are
not willing to make public (like for example your domain name, or a
hostname) then it is acceptable to reply directly with that
information, but any follows afterwards, should be back onlist.
I agree. But (1) I don't think such a policy should be enforced by list
settings, such as Reply-To, and (2) I think it only applies to some
lists; others are not like usenet.
No one would be having this discussion if list owners configured their
lists correctly (as Thomas has done here with users@)
No. But they may be having a different one about how we could make it
easier to send private replies when we want to. Or how as authors we
could indicate where we want private replies set, since our Reply-To
header keeps getting clobbered by the list robot.
So that is where I got the idea that
you don't agree with Reply All for mailing list discussions,
in expressing the agreement above! See?
if it does reply to list and poster, then I do disagree with it.
Of course, if a list doesn't have proper List-Post, etc. headers set, it
has no choice, because it can't determine it is a list.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, no solution is perfect. I think there
are uses for Reply List, I use it regularly in Thunderbird, and I don't
think it's confusing or see any other reason to exclude it. Sure, it's
not necessary, but it's not harmful, either. Consequently, I would like
to see it in RoundCube also. Please consider my vote cast. I've laid out
my reasons, and I hope also brought a little insight from an MLM
perspective. I will not flog a dead horse. Thank you to the developers
for all the work on RoundCube--it is a great and useful piece of
software (even without Reply List :-p).
Ben.
_______________________________________________
Roundcube Users mailing list
users@lists.roundcube.net
http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/users
