Is it at all possible to have this list set reply to? since problems discussed and solved here are logged for others to search, surely it would be best if, by default, replies to these messages came to the list? I know it's just a little thing, but it still bugs me. I know that on other lists to which I subscribe this is done. Anyone else have an opinion on this? -- Have a better one, Curtis. <dtml-var standard_work_disclaimer>
Curtis Maloney wrote:
Is it at all possible to have this list set reply to?
since problems discussed and solved here are logged for others to search, surely it would be best if, by default, replies to these messages came to the list? I know it's just a little thing, but it still bugs me.
I know that on other lists to which I subscribe this is done.
Anyone else have an opinion on this?
Can-of-Worms alert! This is something that has been discussed at length on many forums. Munging like this is not only counter to the stamdards, it is also a Bad Idea (tm) on many levels. -- In flying I have learned that carelessness and overconfidence are usually far more dangerous than deliberately accepted risks. -- Wilbur Wright in a letter to his father, September 1900
This may be well hashed for most here but I'm curious about this. I've noticed that most true mailing lists operate like this zope list, whereas the lists I subscribe to via services like eGroups perform more like Curtis would like it. I'm with Curtis on this, it seems much simpler to just send the reply to the list... if I hit "reply to all" the person I'm responding to and the others that have particpated in the thread get at least two copies... one direct and one via the list. I'd have thought that the multi-copy thing would quite bothersome for most overloaded list-partakers. Plus the fact that at least some of the time messages must unintentionally never make it to the list. I can sure live with it the way it is... but can you give me an idea why "the standard makers" thought the way they did/do? Thanks Michael Simcich AccessTools -----Original Message----- From: ucntcme@zope.org [mailto:ucntcme@zope.org]On Behalf Of Bill Anderson Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 6:21 PM To: Curtis Maloney Cc: zope@zope.org Subject: Re: [Zope] Reply To: Curtis Maloney wrote:
Is it at all possible to have this list set reply to?
since problems discussed and solved here are logged for others to search, surely it would be best if, by default, replies to these messages came to
the
list? I know it's just a little thing, but it still bugs me.
I know that on other lists to which I subscribe this is done.
Anyone else have an opinion on this?
Can-of-Worms alert! This is something that has been discussed at length on many forums. Munging like this is not only counter to the stamdards, it is also a Bad Idea (tm) on many levels. -- In flying I have learned that carelessness and overconfidence are usually far more dangerous than deliberately accepted risks. -- Wilbur Wright in a letter to his father, September 1900 _______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Michael Simcich wrote:
This may be well hashed for most here but I'm curious about this. I've noticed that most true mailing lists operate like this zope list, whereas the lists I subscribe to via services like eGroups perform more like Curtis would like it. I'm with Curtis on this, it seems much simpler to just send the reply to the list... if I hit "reply to all" the person I'm responding to and the others that have particpated in the thread get at least two copies... one direct and one via the list. I'd have thought that the multi-copy thing would quite bothersome for most overloaded list-partakers. Plus the fact that at least some of the time messages must unintentionally never make it to the list. I can sure live with it the way it is... but can you give me an idea why "the standard makers" thought the way they did/do?
Well, one aspect of it is summed up in two words: Mail Loops. Mail loops involving mailing lists get real nastym real fast. While it is true that most MTAs have capabilities to detect them, it is also true few are very effective, and even fewer admins even try to enable them. As far as the two copies aspect, I hit reply-to-all, and delete the individual from the recipient list. Some mailers do it properly and have group, and individual response options. A third aspect is end-user filtering adn reporting. On lists where the headers are munged, often the client reader doesn't display attributions correct, or sort correctly. -- Bill Anderson "Always, there are two." -Yoda "Always, there are three." Zathrus
Michael Simcich writes:
This may be well hashed for most here but I'm curious about this. I've noticed that most true mailing lists operate like this zope list, whereas the lists I subscribe to via services like eGroups perform more like Curtis would like it.
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html The digest version is that adding a reply-to field clobbers legitimate reply-to headers, that many mail readers will have difficulty replying to the sender's address without resorting to cut and paste, and that it renders the 'reply to all' function on most mailers useless. Further more, on 'reply-to' style lists it's quite common to see replies to messages that were intended to be send to the sender end up on the list - to the annoyance of the list readers, and often the embarrassment of the person replying.
I'm with Curtis on this, it seems much simpler to just send the reply to the list... if I hit "reply to all" the person I'm responding to and the others that have particpated in the thread get at least two copies... one direct and one via the list. I'd have thought that the multi-copy thing would quite bothersome for most overloaded list-partakers.
This is the downside to CC style lists. One day it will piss me off enough to write a patch for Mailman so that it won't send a message to a list member if they are already in the To: or CC: fields.
Plus the fact that at least some of the time messages must unintentionally never make it to the list.
Better than the other way around. See above.
I can sure live with it the way it is... but can you give me an idea why "the standard makers" thought the way they did/do?
The Reply-To field is intended to be a way for you to indicate the email address that you can be contacted with when the one your sending from doesn't necessarily receive email - ie, you're migrating between accounts, or posting to a publicly accessible list from an account that isn't receiving email from that list. Whatever. The point is that we want to keep people's reply-to fields where possible. John.
Hi John - It does make sense from those angles. If it was just me and Curtis on the list I guess we'd still like to have it our way <g>, but that's ok. I'm sure what Bill said about this issue having been turned over endlessly is true, and therefore if this sort of standard has emerged it's got to the the way to go. Whoops I almost sent that only to you... <g> Michael Simcich AccessTools -----Original Message----- From: John Morton [mailto:jwm@plain.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 9:10 PM To: Michael Simcich Cc: zope@zope.org Subject: RE: [Zope] Reply To: Michael Simcich writes:
This may be well hashed for most here but I'm curious about this. I've noticed that most true mailing lists operate like this zope list, whereas the lists I subscribe to via services like eGroups perform more like Curtis would like it.
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html The digest version is that adding a reply-to field clobbers legitimate reply-to headers, that many mail readers will have difficulty replying to the sender's address without resorting to cut and paste, and that it renders the 'reply to all' function on most mailers useless. Further more, on 'reply-to' style lists it's quite common to see replies to messages that were intended to be send to the sender end up on the list - to the annoyance of the list readers, and often the embarrassment of the person replying.
I'm with Curtis on this, it seems much simpler to just send the reply to the list... if I hit "reply to all" the person I'm responding to and the others that have particpated in the thread get at least two copies... one direct and one via the list. I'd have thought that the multi-copy thing would quite bothersome for most overloaded list-partakers.
This is the downside to CC style lists. One day it will piss me off enough to write a patch for Mailman so that it won't send a message to a list member if they are already in the To: or CC: fields.
Plus the fact that at least some of the time messages must unintentionally never make it to the list.
Better than the other way around. See above.
I can sure live with it the way it is... but can you give me an idea why "the standard makers" thought the way they did/do?
The Reply-To field is intended to be a way for you to indicate the email address that you can be contacted with when the one your sending from doesn't necessarily receive email - ie, you're migrating between accounts, or posting to a publicly accessible list from an account that isn't receiving email from that list. Whatever. The point is that we want to keep people's reply-to fields where possible. John.
Green things... wow... the can-o'-worms comment was way accurate... (o8 On Thu, 02 Mar 2000, John Morton wrote:
Michael Simcich writes:
This may be well hashed for most here but I'm curious about this. I've noticed that most true mailing lists operate like this zope list, whereas the lists I subscribe to via services like eGroups perform more like Curtis would like it.
Thanks for the details...
The digest version is that adding a reply-to field clobbers legitimate reply-to headers, that many mail readers will have difficulty replying to the sender's address without resorting to cut and paste, and that it renders the 'reply to all' function on most mailers useless.
Further more, on 'reply-to' style lists it's quite common to see replies to messages that were intended to be send to the sender end up on the list - to the annoyance of the list readers, and often the embarrassment of the person replying.
I'm with Curtis on this, it seems much simpler to just send the reply to the list... if I hit "reply to all" the person I'm responding to and the others that have particpated in the thread get at least two copies... one direct and one via the list. I'd have thought that the multi-copy thing would quite bothersome for most overloaded list-partakers.
This is the downside to CC style lists. One day it will piss me off enough to write a patch for Mailman so that it won't send a message to a list member if they are already in the To: or CC: fields.
OK... here I will agree... smarter list servers are better, always. (o8
Plus the fact that at least some of the time messages must unintentionally never make it to the list.
Better than the other way around. See above.
I can sure live with it the way it is... but can you give me an idea why "the standard makers" thought the way they did/do?
The Reply-To field is intended to be a way for you to indicate the email address that you can be contacted with when the one your sending from doesn't necessarily receive email - ie, you're migrating between accounts, or posting to a publicly accessible list from an account that isn't receiving email from that list. Whatever. The point is that we want to keep people's reply-to fields where possible.
OK... here is something I was talking with my workmates about. So, i send a message to the list from somewhere other than my list registered account. If i was migrating accounts, or whatever, i would change my details with the list server. Mailing Lists should only be sending to registered addresses, surely? so, the list server doesn't care where the message came from (or maybe it does), and has a FIXED LIST (as far as it's concerned) of people to forward the messages to. Why does it care what is in the reply-to field? on another point that is showing in this list... Reply-To-All buttons... having reply-to set cirvumvents ALL the problems with duplicate messages, etc. I have the option of a) Reply-To-All, and risk doubling to someone, OR hitting Reply, and getting the mailing list server to send it on to everyone appropriate.
John.
-- Have a better one, Curtis. <dtml-var standard_work_disclaimer>
From: "Curtis Maloney" <curtis@umd.com.au>
on another point that is showing in this list... Reply-To-All buttons...
having reply-to set cirvumvents ALL the problems with duplicate messages, etc. I have the option of a) Reply-To-All, and risk doubling to someone, OR hitting Reply, and getting the mailing list server to send it on to everyone appropriate.
Just on a personal note: I _like_ the curtesy reply to my personal account. I redirect mailinglists to their own folder. On a list like Zope, that is very busy, I would very easily miss replies to my messages. With a good filter (like I use), I get a personal reply into my In box, not redirected. It is great for notifying me that I got a reply to my message. Martijn Pieters | Software Engineer mailto:mj@digicool.com | Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com/ | Creators of Zope http://www.zope.org/ | The Open Source Web Application Server ---------------------------------------------
"Michael" == Michael Simcich <msimcich@accesstools.com> writes:
Michael> way it is... but can you give me an idea why "the Michael> standard makers" thought the way they did/do? Check out these links for a bit of background and debate about this: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://www.metasystema.org/reply-to-useful.mhtml Hope that helps!
A very meek greeting.. Ok... i have now seen the error of my ways. I fully admit i was not aware there were so many problems to what seemed like such a simple convenience. I'm sure i can live with trying to remember to set the To address. Please, _I_ require no further conviction in this matter. The information has been provided as i asked (thanks to all who did), and I have been made suitably aware of why this (and many other) list avoids using the reply-to field, for the simple matter of 'avoiding problems'. Hey.. by the way... has anyone else noticed the prolific nature of vagueness in RFCs? -- Have a better one, Curtis. <dtml-var standard_work_disclaimer>
just to elaborate on a few common points that have been brought up on this list, and covered here:
1) "It's against the standard": Quoting directly from that article: The first thing to consider is that RFC 822, the document which defines the standards and usages for email, specifically mentions this usage in section 4.4.3: A somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution services: include the address of that service in the "Reply- To" field of all messages submitted to the teleconference; then participants can "reply" to conference submissions to guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of their own. It's not "against" the standard. It may be a quirk of the standard. Detractors, please familiarize yourselves before FUDding. 2) "It causes mail loops." Can someone please direct me to a record of this actually happening? It's certainly not common, and I run all of my lists with munging on. It doesn't cause problems there. Several other lists (yes, some of them are even "real" lists) that I subscribe to use munging and have never seen a mailloop. 3) "Autoresponders are upset by it." If you're going to use an autoresponder, configure it responsably! Better yet, don't use one at all. They are annoying. Mail loops generated here would happen anyway. 4) "It removes useful information." If you're using the 'reply-to' header rather than your 'from' header to encode the address you want responses sent to, I know this is within the standard, but you're wasting my bandwidth and my time. I don't need to know both what machine you sent from and what machine you want me to reply to. Just put your own address in the 'from' header. (This is what most people do anyway. I don't know anyone that works otherwise.) 5) "It removes freedom" This is a crock. Anyone with a reasonably written mailer can respond to messages how they please: reply-to munging makes it easier to reply *only to the list* which is almost always the required functionality. If you really can't live without the original reply-to header, maybe you should consider posting a message to the list asking the person's private email that you want to get in touch with: you should really be requesting to take on-topic discussions off the list in the first place anyway. Speaking of wasting my money / time, if you're going to be a detractor of reply-to munging, PLEASE be thoughtful enough, at least, to remove the inevitable list of 18 or 20 recipients that cruft up to threads over time. This 'conscientious' behavior, as described by Chip Rosenthal, has gotten me CC:ed on some messages 2 or 3 times on unmunged mailinglists. I find this annoying, but less so than getting flamed for sending out 8 replies to a single mailing-list message. And I like to conserve bandwidth. This is much-repeated stuff, but I hate to think that there's this image that technically sophistocated people all hate munging and think it's evil. Chip's opinion is, as the author of the essay referenced above has told me, treated as gospel, and there are definitely two views on this topic. I strongly adhere to one, obviously. :-) (Please, no flames, no personal email about this. I'm not going to be convinced of anything, this is just a message to make sure that 'newbies' to list administration don't think that there is one answer to this question. It's not really for those of you who seriously consider munging bad, and I certainly don't hope to get the policy on this list changed by it; that would only spark more discussion of this, and one extra email once in a while isn't so bad compared to thousands upon thousands of messages in this thread... ^_^) ______ __ __ _____ _ _ | ____ | \_/ |_____] |_____| |_____| |_____ | | | | @ t w i s t e d m a t r i x . c o m http://www.twistedmatrix.com/~glyph/
Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: ...
The first thing to consider is that RFC 822, the document which defines the standards and usages for email, specifically mentions this usage in section 4.4.3:
A somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution services: include the address of that service in the "Reply- To" field of all messages submitted to the teleconference; then participants can "reply" to conference submissions to guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of their own.
It's not "against" the standard. It may be a quirk of the standard. Detractors, please familiarize yourselves before FUDding.
<nitpick> adding to != changing </nitpick> ;) ...
4) "It removes useful information."
If you're using the 'reply-to' header rather than your 'from' header to encode the address you want responses sent to, I know this is within the standard, but you're wasting my bandwidth and my time. I don't need to know both what machine you sent from and what machine you want me to reply to. Just put your own address in the 'from' header. (This is what most people do anyway. I don't know anyone that works otherwise.)
In addition to the valid uses posted otherwise ... Real life example: At work, I am within a corporate firewall. On my unixen, my email address is local to the machine, ie. bill@somehostname.bigcorp.com. If you reply to that, you will be wasting your time and badwidth, since you _can't_ access it from outside the firewall. Thus, I (in this example) add a reply-to that has a _useable_ email address, ie. one avaiable to you, form outside the firewall. I personally know of several hundred people who do this, and several thousand who _should_ be. And before you say it, no, not every mailer lets you set the 'from' header. The point? Now you know someone who uses it. ;^) How can this be on topic, you ask? Read on. :) I've notice a certain increase in the amount of 'sending mass email with zope' messages lately, and not many solutions. Since I don't zope on windows, one method I have used when wanting to avoid the sendmail tag (I _was_ having problems with the friggin thing not working), was to shell out and call mail (or mailx, depending on your *nix) to send each message. Problem was, when doing that, the 'from' address was 'nobody@foo.bar.com'. Since I wanted replies, I had to add the reply-to to get a response that was useful. (Hey, I din't say it was a strong effort to bring it back on topic for the list :) Perhaps those wanting to send out mass emails *cough*spam*cough* with zope, and not finding answers from within Zope and the sendlmail tag (yeah, I still look at that puppy with suspicion and a sneer :) may see this as an option -- In flying I have learned that carelessness and overconfidence are usually far more dangerous than deliberately accepted risks. -- Wilbur Wright in a letter to his father, September 1900
Morning... On Thu, 02 Mar 2000, Bill Anderson wrote:
Curtis Maloney wrote:
Is it at all possible to have this list set reply to?
since problems discussed and solved here are logged for others to search, surely it would be best if, by default, replies to these messages came to the list? I know it's just a little thing, but it still bugs me.
I know that on other lists to which I subscribe this is done.
Anyone else have an opinion on this?
Can-of-Worms alert!
Isn't this what open forums are best at? (o8
This is something that has been discussed at length on many forums. Munging like this is not only counter to the stamdards, it is also a Bad Idea (tm) on many levels.
Erm... since when is the reply to field of an e-mail header NOT standard? Why is it a bad idea? It means the default action of replying to a message on this list is to contribute to the list. I'm not saying you are wrong. I just would prefer a clear explanation instead of an outright "that is wrong." -- Have a better one, Curtis. <dtml-var standard_work_disclaimer>
Curtis Maloney wrote:
Erm... since when is the reply to field of an e-mail header NOT standard? Why is it a bad idea? It means the default action of replying to a message on this list is to contribute to the list.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I just would prefer a clear explanation instead of an outright "that is wrong."
Curtis Maloney wrote:
Morning...
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000, Bill Anderson wrote:
Curtis Maloney wrote:
Is it at all possible to have this list set reply to?
since problems discussed and solved here are logged for others to search, surely it would be best if, by default, replies to these messages came to the list? I know it's just a little thing, but it still bugs me.
I know that on other lists to which I subscribe this is done.
Anyone else have an opinion on this?
Can-of-Worms alert!
Isn't this what open forums are best at? (o8
This is something that has been discussed at length on many forums. Munging like this is not only counter to the stamdards, it is also a Bad Idea (tm) on many levels.
Erm... since when is the reply to field of an e-mail header NOT standard?
A reply-to field itself is not against standards, the requested _use_ of the reply-to field is. Slight difference ;) [The applicable standard is RFC822.] (of course, technically speaking, the modified subject line in this very post is in violation of the standard, but since it doesn't tend to cause nasty mail loops, it largely goes unnoticed :) )
Why is it a bad idea? It means the default action of replying to a message on this list is to contribute to the list.
Right. Now what happens when Joe User takes a trip, and sets his 'I am on vacation.' autoresponder on? That response is sent to everyone. That response generates another email to him ... continue ad nauseum. Or consider the target email being no-longer-valid. You get a mailer-daemon response telling everyone on the list about it; which includes the target thus generating an error which.... Granted, when all parts of the peices of the puzzle are coded properly, that may be reduced in frequency and/or intensity, but unfortunately, many, many manchines are not set up properly, and software isn't coded correctly.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I just would prefer a clear explanation instead of an outright "that is wrong."
See my other response. On top of those, I would add the issues with mail <-> news gateways and loops that can/do occur as a result of improper header munging. -- In flying I have learned that carelessness and overconfidence are usually far more dangerous than deliberately accepted risks. -- Wilbur Wright in a letter to his father, September 1900
participants (8)
-
Bill Anderson -
Curtis Maloney -
Glyph Lefkowitz -
John Morton -
Martijn Pieters -
Michael Simcich -
Michel Pelletier -
Nolan Darilek