>far too many newbie list users and administrators set up lists so that replies go
>back to the list. This URL states quite clearly and coherently why this is a bad
>idea. Personally, I have acquired too much scar tissue from misbehaving
>vacation programs replying to themselves with a reply goes back to the list. It's a
>real nasty death spiral that takes out mail servers on a regular basis.
>
>http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
I strongly disagree with this person. I run two mail lists from my server
and do not have trouble with vacation mail from my list members. I have
more problems from addresses that go dead, than bounced vacation mail.
Plus, if I changed the list so that Reply-To was removed, or set to the
poster, I would get my nuts cut off by the users. The whole reason for the
lists is to communicate between the members.
I quote the following from his document:
"Any reasonable, modern mailer provides this feature. I prefer the Elm mailer.
It has separate ``r)eply'' and ``g)roup-reply'' commands. If I want to reply
to the author of a message, I strike the ``r'' key. If I want to send a reply
to the entire list, I hit ``g'' instead. Piece 'o cake."
I too use elm, exclusively. The "g" key causes a problem, which he fails to
mention, in that TWO pieces of e-mail is sent out, one to the list and
one to the author. Doesn't seem unreasonable, except that the author will
get TWO copies of the e-mail. It is bad enough that I get 300 pieces of
e-mail a day. I don't need to wade through two copies, especially if they
don't arrive together. I did a g)roup reply to this, so you will see TWO
copies of it in your mail box.
Here is Chip's summary and my responses:
1) It violates the principle of minimal munging.
It is still minimal munging. The Reply-To is set to where the message
came from, in this case the mail list.
2) It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer.
It certainly does, as it allows me to hit r) and reply back to the
group.
3) It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will
direct a response.
Bull crap.
4) It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer.
It has never reduced my functionality.
5) It removes important information, which can make it impossible to get back
to the message sender.
More bull crap. Since Chris loves the elm mailer, like me, he must
know about the h) key. That will display all of the header information
so that he can cut the author's address into a X-buffer. I've yet
to not be able to find the author's e-mail address in all of the
headers, from either the lists that I send out, or in the other lists
that I subscribe to. The From: header is normally still there and
it contains the author's address. I've yet to be able to send a
personal reply to an author.
6) It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to coddle those
running brain-dead software.
I run the same elm software that he does and I don't have a problem
with Reply-To set to the mail list.
7) It violates the principle of least work because complicates the procedure
for replying to messages.
It never has for me.
8) It violates the principle of least surprise because it changes the way a
mailer works.
Sorry, but I am caught by surprise with the RedHat list because I
am so used to hitting r) and having the response go to the mail list.
Now I hit the r), type the message, hit s) to send it and then go
"Oh Shit!" because it went to the author and not the list.
9) It violates the principle of least damage, and it encourages a failure
mode that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse.
Bull crap. See #8. After I've said "Oh Shit!", I have to reenter
the reply in order to send it to the list, or if it is a long one,
e-mail the author and ask for it to be sent back to me. I don't
have the system keep a copy of everything I send. I'd spend way too
muich time deleting copies I don't want. I know before I send it
if I want a copy or not, and if so, I CC myself.
Yes, I've seen messages posted to lists that were meant to be sent
only to the author, but those are few and far between. And yes, I've
done it.
10) 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.
Speak for yourself. I've had ZERO list members request a change
to a reply to the author.
As I've mentioned, Chris fails to mention the double mailing when using
g)roup reply. To me that is a real problem that is solved by having the
reply sent to the group. I do not like receiving double messages when
the problem goes away by using a reply to the mail list.
I'm sorry, but Chris' arguments do not hold water with me and cause me more
problems than it is worth. I guess Chris doesn't mind eating up net bandwidth
sending two messages out over the net, or eating up disk space on the
user's computer by sending the poor person two copies of an e-mail that
should, by all rights, be a single copy.
I vote for the Reply-To being returned to the mail list, pointing to the
mail list.
MB
--
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bart: Hey, why is it destroying other toys? Lisa: They must have
programmed it to eliminate the competition. Bart: You mean like
Microsoft? Lisa: Exactly. [The Simpsons - 12/18/99]
Visit - URL:http://www.vidiot.com/ (Your link to Star Trek and UPN)
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
