[H-GEN] software runs the world

Russell Stuart russell-humbug at stuart.id.au
Sat Mar 19 18:13:09 EST 2005


On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 04:38, Robert Brockway wrote:
> Hi Stuart.  When this came up the first time (or maybe the 2nd time, it 
> has come up so many times) I wrote a procmail receipes to write the 
> reply-to for Humbug General and Humbug Chat:
> 
> # Add Reply-To to HUMBUG General list
> :0 cfw
> * ^X-BeenThere:.*general at lists.humbug.org.au.*
> | formail -a "Reply-To: general at lists.humbug.org.au"
> 
> # Add Reply-To to HUMBUG Chat list
> :0 cfw
> * ^X-BeenThere:.*chat at lists.humbug.org.au.*
> | formail -a "Reply-To: chat at lists.humbug.org.au"
> 
> I've been using this successfully for a couple of years.

Which is fine for incoming mail.  The problem occurred when I
initiated a thread, and set the ReplyTo: wrongly.  Procmail
can't help in that case.

> > As for leaving it to list members to do the right thing, if
> > I want them to reply to the list, it seems polite to make
> > it easy for them to do so.  Besides, I happen to regard the
> > not munging the reply to as harmful for the list - it 
> > reduces traffic when people who are as forgetful as me 
> > forget to change the "To:" address.  So relying on list 
> 
> Personally I think it is imperative that people examine where every email 
> is going before sending.  I regularly see private emails going to lists.  
> 
> I consider this a basic email skill along with having an idea how to 
> unsubscribe (or being prepared to look as far as the footer before 
> asking).
> 
> A new tips section is going up on www.opentrend.net.  One of the first 
> sections is "Email skills" and one of the first things being listed is 
> "examination of the To and Cc fields before sending".
> 
> It's just a habit.  Once you get used to reviewing (or changing) those 
> fields before sending it becomes 2nd nature.

Yes, it is just basic skill.  But even if we insisted that
everyone went to school to learn this basic skill, if it has
to be done manually then mistakes will be made.  It is just
like driving a car, really.  It is a basic skill in our
society.  But no one would suggest (I hope) that if someone
has a car accident, then it means they haven't mastered that
basic skill. The vast majority of people will have multiple
minor car accidents during their life time.  It is not 
because the haven't learnt the basic skill.  It is because 
they are human.

Likewise, just because people make the occasional mistake in
addressing their emails, it doesn't mean they haven't mastered
the basic skills required to email something.

> > members to do the right thing doesn't always work.  As it 
> > happens, you commented negatively at the start of this 
> > thread on this being one of the bad things about mailing 
> > lists - people replying to the wrong list.  Munging ReplyTo
> > automatically would eliminate that.  It would only happen
> > when someone deliberately wanted to cross post.
> 
> With respect, it seems to me that you are presuming that the approach that 
> works for you should be imposed on all list users.  I propose that since 
> the default is other than what you want, others must find an alternative 
> desirable.

We have been over the "Reply to munging considered harmful"
debate before, and I don't want to dredge it up again.  But
to address your particular point, it doesn't have to be, and
probably shouldn't be, inflicted on all list users.  There is
obviously a group - and it appears to be the more technically
skilled of you out thee, that want to be able to set your
ReplyTo according to your own rules.  But the rest of us are
either bone lazy (like me), or wouldn't know what a ReplyTo
was if they fell over it.  For that group I am saying the
right thing to do is to mung the ReplyTo so replies are sent
back the the list they came from.  I suspect this second
group represents the bulk of the list users, but probably 
generates the smaller number of posts.

Anyway the point is that this would be, I suspect, a simple
patch Mailman to add this option per user.  The global
default would be to do ReplyTo munging, but individuals
could turn it off.  As I have said before, if the powers
that be would accept change the change, I would be happy to
write the patch.

> The current approach allows for the retention of the most state 
> information since some people set the Reply-To themselves.  If we forcibly 
> over-write it when an email passes through the list then information is 
> lost (specifically, the original Replt-To setting).
> 
> You can munge your own Reply-To, and don't need the list managers to do 
> it (as per my procmail receipes).

Well, to repeat what I said to this last time it was raised,
this simply doesn't work for a lot of people.  These include:

  . People who use Windows to read their email.
  . People who use a web browser to read their email.
  . People who don't have admin rights over the computer
    they use.
  . People who don't know what procmail is.
  . People who don't want to set up fetchmail.

In other words, this solution doesn't work for a _lot_
of people - almost certainly all of the casual users of
these lists.





More information about the General mailing list