[ODE] Suggestion for List admin

[gl]

Here's the problem.  Many people here (including myself) want to be able to
hit reply to mail straight back to the list.  This is a list where most
replies are relevant to others, so it's a sensible default.

However, because of the way it's set up now, it doesn't work, so people
instead tend to hit reply-to-all.  When that happens, the sender of the
message receives what appears to be a personal reply.  The resulting 'did
you mean to send this to me directly?' and 'oh, didn't it go to the list?'
becomes tiresome quickly.

I'm on a wide range of lists - _all_ use reply-to-list.  I can see that
other types of lists might benefit from non-munging, this list doesn't.
--
gl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Royce3" <royce3@ev1.net>
To: <ode@q12.org>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [ODE] Suggestion for List admin


> Personally, I'm in favor of Reply-To munging, but this discussion
> has gotten way too long-winded for my tastes. I'd much rather be
> coding. I know how the list works, and I manually type in the To
> address whenever I reply to it. Fortunately the ODE mailing address
> is rather short and easy to remember. ( Incidentally I won't use
> Reply-To-All because that means the author of the message I'm replying
> to will get the message twice - unsatisfactory in my opinion ).
>
> Just my 2 cents... now back to coding!
>
> >
> >Subject: Re: [ODE] Suggestion for List admin
> >   From: <skjold@cistron.nl>
> >   Date: Fri, 14 Feb  2003 14:21:51
> >     To: ode@q12.org
> >
> >Sam Clegg wrote:
> >> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> >
> >Mailing lists are used for different things. Some are really a
distribution mechanism, no more and no less. In those cases, replies are
often sent directly (and privately) to the original author of an email. This
ODE mailing list, however, is more of a discussion forum than a distribution
list. It might as well have been an online message board. I think this
distinction between how mailing lists are used, is important in deciding how
to configure (or munge) things such as the Reply-To address. In the end,
however, I agree with the author of the above article, that what's most
important is what the users of a mailing list prefer themselves. So perhaps
it's worth it to poll for this. I myself would prefer munging the Reply-To
address in this case.
> >
> >About the arguments presented at the link given above:
> >
> >> It violates the principle of minimal munging.
> >Minimal munging does not necessarily mean minimal configuration, and
configuration of any system depends on how it's applied.
> >
> >> It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer.
> >> It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will direct a
response.
> >> It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer.
> >> It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to coddle
those running brain-dead software.
> >My mailer software isn't the problem. I just don't think that
Reply-To-Group is necessarily the right way to reply to a mailing list. The
list of addresses is maintained centrally, so I think it should be up to the
distributing system to distribute my replies. That's what it's for. Also I
don't see how it's considered limiting in any way, in fact I think it's
rather a matter of convenience. As for the functionality, I never saw a
Reply-To-List-Only option in any mailer, so I would argue that it actually
adds functionality.
> >
> >> It removes important information, which can make it impossible to get
back to the message sender.
> >That may or may not be the case, depending on other settings of the list
admin. But in case the original author's email address is removed (if it's
also not there in the From field), then there might be a reason for it, such
as privacy.
> >
> >> It violates the principle of least work because complicates the
procedure for replying to messages.
> >> It violates the principle of least surprise because it changes the way
a mailer works.
> >Again that depends on what the list is used for. I totally understand
this argument, but if the list is used as a public discussion forum then I
think almost all replies are sent to the list anyway. So then it becomes
less work, and also less surprising I think, if the Reply-To field is nicely
munged.
> >
> >> It violates the principle of least damage, and it encourages a failure
mode that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse.
> >That's an argument in favor of coddling the brain-dead: "Don't munge the
Reply-To field, someone might use it by accident." It's common knowledge
that introducing convenience often implies added risk, there's nothing you
can do about that except find a good balance. And that balance is rather
subject to opinion, because even though risk might be considered calculable,
convenience is not.
> >
> >> 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.
> >Let's poll for that. I'll settle for whatever the majority decides.
> >_______________________________________________
> >ODE mailing list
> >ODE@q12.org
> >http://q12.org/mailman/listinfo/ode
>
> _______________________________________________
> ODE mailing list
> ODE@q12.org
> http://q12.org/mailman/listinfo/ode
>
>