On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:06:27PM -0600, Justin Dugger wrote:
I'm reasonably certain that everyone understands that the list is for linux and technological related purposes. With a reasonably good client the volume of this kind of mail we see on the list isn't overwhelming. I realize it might require a change in mailing list manager (quite the gamble given that the old one was broken for nearly a year), but I've seen listserv managers that will give subscribers plenty of options on how delivery is done, including the to and cc fields.
And with a reasonably good client, one can hit Reply-to-list.
In this context, the job of the mailing list manager is to enable client-side decisions, whether that of an original poster or of someone posting replies. The job of the client software is to help specify and carry out those client side decisions.
Who to reply to is a client-side decision. If the list manager preserves the original headers (eg, Reply-to:) and then adds any additional list-specific headers, a reasonable client (meaning both the software and the user) can decide quite easily and painlessly what they intend to do, and can then carry out that decision.
Munging Reply-to: tramples the transimission of an important piece of information--where the sender wants replies to go. Just because the sender asks it though doesn't mean the replier has to comply. Munging sharply limits the flexibility of your mailing lists. I gave up managing the amesfug mailing lists in part because of the stink that was kicked up over my decision (aborted upon my resignation) to remove Reply-to munging.
I was trying to set up different lists to complement the main list. Without the ability to send a message with the expectation that the Reply-to: will stay intact, that becomes infeasible. Realize Reply-to: isn't always the address of the sender--it can quite reasonably be some other address.
For example, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to send something to an -announce list while redirecting replies to an address to which non-subscribers (eg, newbies, installfest registrants, etc) can post without moderator intervention (like a newbie-handholding-volunteer with good spam filter, or an installfest coordinator, etc) Or to send email to the main list and redirect replies to an -executive list in which administrative garbage (like this thread) gets redirected. And so on.
The impulse to say "hey, these are computers, can't they be configured to do things the way we want them" is quite correct and understandable. The mistake is in which computer you pick to try to change and who you try to get to effect that change: The right one to change is the computer you manage, to make it work the way *you* want, and the right person to do it is you. Lists like this exist to help you with that.
But if you aren't willing to do that, if you want the list manager to break things for yet again another person, just so you can have your way . . . well, in the interests of amity, I should probably not say outright what I think of that.
I'd be interested to know how many pro-mungers are people who've run more than one active mailing list, versus folks whose only experience of lists is subscribing to lists managed by other people.
I wonder if one reason certain folks shy away from discussing "freedom" in the context of software involves its corollary: responsibility.