[TriLUG] Reply-To munging

[Mike Johnson]

Tanner Lovelace [lovelace at wayfarer.org] wrote:
 
> So, can someone explain to me why we add a reply-to list header?
> Make sure you read http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> before answering...

Because that's the way it is.  This debate comes up periodically,
but the answer is always the same.  Someone always points out that
link.

In the end, I disagree with Chip Rosenthal.  I like it this way,
and most of the membership likes it this way (it seems).  

To address the points in his summary:

> It violates the principle of minimal munging.

Who's principle?  List software already munges mail.  Munging the 
reply-to is really a small amount of munging, when it comes down
do it.

> It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer.

*shrug*  There's plenty of people on the list who don't use
reasonable mailers.  We can't force them to change.

> It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will direct
> a response.

Granted.  However, this is a mailing list.  We want to promote 
discussion.  If you send something to the list, expect the reply
to come to the list, or your from (which is perfectly changable 
in a reasonable mailer).  In the end, where the response goes is
entirely up to the responder.  Putting in a reply-to does not
change where the response goes.  It's a suggestion.

> It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer.

See the part about the minimal munging.  The list software reduces
the functionality more than adjusting the reply-to.

> It removes important information, which can make it impossible to
> get back to the message sender.

So does the list software.  However, the 'from' field is preserved.
This is the same point about directing the response.

> It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to coddle 
> those running brain-dead software.

Perhaps.  However, there are many people on the list who do not
have resonable mailers, either by their own choice, or because
they have no other option.  I don't see why we should force them
out.

> It violates the principle of least work because complicates the 
> procedure for replying to messages.

Um.  Again, most of the list traffic is responded to (and meant
to be responded to) on list.  Least work is responding to the
list.  This makes it easier on those who don't have resonable
mailers.

> It violates the principle of least surprise because it changes the
> way a mailer works.

So, people who have resonable mailers don't know how to read the
headers on the mail they're sending?  Anyways, I think that most
people on a discussion list think that the responses should be
on the list (hence the discussion).  The surprise would be to
not send to the list.

> It violates the principle of least damage, and it encourages a failure 
> mode that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse.

See the point about the munging.  This is a questionable principle.
As far as far as "extremely embarrassing", that's not all that
likely on our list.  Possibly embarrassing, but doubtful that
if would be "extreme".

> Your subscribers don't want you to do it.  Or, at least the ones who have 
> bothered to read the docs for their mailer don't want you to do it.

That seems to be putting words in their mouths.  Some subscribers 
don't want it, but most seem pretty happy with it.  It's also 
making that assumption that everyone has a resonable mailer.



In the end, if enough people -really- want this changed, we'll
of course do it.  What -seems- to be the case is that most
people either like it the way it is, or don't care.

Mike, TriLUG Steering Committee Member
-- 
"Yeah it is! Cause he's bakin' in the...kitchen of darkness!  A pie of
lost souls...until it's golden brown!" -- Moltar on Space Ghost

GNUPG Key fingerprint = ACD2 2F2F C151 FB35 B3AF  C821 89C4 DF9A 5DDD 95D1
GNUPG Key = http://www.enoch.org/mike/mike.pubkey.asc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.trilug.org/pipermail/trilug/attachments/20020108/f4c8f64f/attachment.pgp>