Taking a poll on mail client reply

[D. Joe]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:06:27PM -0600, Justin Dugger wrote:

> I'm reasonably certain that everyone understands that the list is for
> linux and technological related purposes. With a reasonably good
> client the volume of this kind of mail we see on the list isn't
> overwhelming.  I realize it might require a change in mailing list
> manager (quite the gamble given that the old one was broken for nearly
> a year), but I've seen listserv managers that will give subscribers
> plenty of options on how delivery is done, including the to and cc
> fields.

And with a reasonably good client, one can hit Reply-to-list.  

In this context, the job of the mailing list manager is to
enable client-side decisions, whether that of an original poster
or of someone posting replies.  The job of the client software
is to help specify and carry out those client side decisions.

Who to reply to is a client-side decision.  If the list manager
preserves the original headers (eg, Reply-to:) and then adds any
additional list-specific headers, a reasonable client (meaning
both the software and the user) can decide quite easily and
painlessly what they intend to do, and can then carry out that
decision.

Munging Reply-to: tramples the transimission of an important
piece of information--where the sender wants replies to go. 
Just because the sender asks it though doesn't mean the replier
has to comply.  Munging sharply limits the flexibility of your
mailing lists.  I gave up managing the amesfug mailing lists in
part because of the stink that was kicked up over my decision
(aborted upon my resignation) to remove Reply-to munging.

I was trying to set up different lists to complement the main
list.  Without the ability to send a message with the
expectation that the Reply-to: will stay intact, that becomes
infeasible.  Realize Reply-to: isn't always the address of
the sender--it can quite reasonably be some other address.

For example, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to send
something to an -announce list while redirecting replies to an
address to which non-subscribers (eg, newbies, installfest
registrants, etc) can post without moderator intervention (like
a newbie-handholding-volunteer with good spam filter, or an
installfest coordinator, etc) Or to send email to the main list
and redirect replies to an -executive list in which
administrative garbage (like this thread) gets redirected.  And
so on.

The impulse to say "hey, these are computers, can't they be
configured to do things the way we want them" is quite correct
and understandable.  The mistake is in which computer you pick
to try to change and who you try to get to effect that change:
The right one to change is the computer you manage, to make it
work the way *you* want, and the right person to do it is you. 
Lists like this exist to help you with that.

But if you aren't willing to do that, if you want the list
manager to break things for yet again another person, just so
you can have your way . . . well, in the interests of amity, I
should probably not say outright what I think of that.

I'd be interested to know how many pro-mungers are people who've
run more than one active mailing list, versus folks whose only
experience of lists is subscribing to lists managed by other
people.  

I wonder if one reason certain folks shy away from discussing
"freedom" in the context of software involves its corollary:
responsibility.

-- 
D. Joe