[Zope] Reply To:

[Curtis Maloney]

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.
> 
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> 

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>