Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 07:48:36 +0200 From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com CC: dalias@...c.org Subject: Re: Mutt group reply On 2014-07-15 17:12, Rich Felker wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 09:27:09AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >> On 07/13/14 22:51, Rich Felker wrote: >> > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:58:59AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 07:59:04PM +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote: >> >>> On 13/07/2014 17:34, Solar Designer wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> An alternative is to reconfigure the list so that it doesn't set the >> >>>> Reply-To header, but this may result in many replies being inadvertently >> >>>> sent off-list. I think it's better for Mutt users to adopt a habit to >> >>>> answer that question with "n". >> > >> > Thanks! I had been looking for a solution to this issue for a long >> > time but didn't bother to really look into it. >> >> Thunderbird's "reply all" will _only_ reply to the reply-to, and I wind >> up manually copying in individual email addresses to cc: when I bother. >> (Yes, it has a 'reply list' button, but the reply-to header overrides >> the difference.) > > Reply-to headers should not override the 'reply to all' feature in a > mail client. If they do, this is a bug. What use is 'reply to all' if > it behaves the same as plain 'reply'? Thunderbird isn't the only Mail client that's affected. As far as I know, Apple Mail and GMail are affected in pretty much the same way. >> So it breaks other mail clients too. Largely because reply-to seems to >> be used so seldom, and thus isn't particularly debugged. (This is the >> only list I've followed in the past 5 years at least that uses reply-to.) > > In lists I've been active on, I've seen both approaches. oss-security > and all the mplayer and ffmpeg lists are other examples that use(d) > Reply-to. Busybox and uclibc and libc-alpha (glibc) are some that > don't. I can use both (especially now that I found a good solution for > avoiding messing up replies myself) but I pretty strongly prefer the > use of Reply-to, because it tends to avoid having people accidentally > reply off-list and losing the continuity of threads on the list. And > since it's easy to detect Reply-to generated by the list (e.g. just > look for the To and Reply-to addresses matching), any good client > should be able to override this default for power users who really > want to override it. I consider lists using Reply-To to be badly broken. Is it really worth breaking often used regular features (like either replying directly to the author, or reply-all) with several popular mail clients, just for the sake of preventing a few accidental off-list emails from people who click the wrong button? I don't think so. I think this is spot on: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html - Felix
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.