[syslinux] Changing the Reply-To: option for the list

[Ady]

> Op 2014-03-14 om 16:02 schreef Gene Cumm:
> > On Mar 14, 2014 3:41 PM, "Ady" <ady-sf at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > A few years ago, at popular request, I changed the default of the list
> > > > to have a Reply-To: pointing at the list.  I personally find it very
> > > > annoying, and I would like to change the default back.
> > > >
> > > > Would people object to trying it?
> > > >
> > > >       -hpa
> > >
> > > Hi Peter,
> > >
> > > My assumption is that having a specific and adequate "reply-to" field
> > > reduces the chances of accidentally replying to the original senders
> > > (as oppose to sending the reply to the distribution list).
> > >
> > > For "frequent repliers" of this mailing list, the possibility of
> > > replying to an original sender (instead of replying to the list)
> > > might happen by mistake.
> > >
> > > Newcomers (or people more used to popular and newer "social media"
> > > than to "good old plain mailing lists"), by not having an adequate
> > > "reply-to" field could, inadvertently, send replies to personal
> > > addresses of other members of the list, instead of replying to the
> > > list itself.
> > >
> > > I am not sure how the reply-to field is annoying, but I guess it
> > > depends on the particular email client and on how each one manages
> > > it.
> > >
> > > To be clear, I don't object to trying this change. I just fear of the
> > > aforementioned potential consequences.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Ady.
> > 
> > I too am curious at how this is annoying.  I find it generally useful but
> > even with reply-to and the message on the bottom I find users/mailers still
> > emailing me directly rather than the list.
> 
> FWIW: I'm voting _for_ this change. So do _not change_ the Reply-To: header.
> 
> See http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html for motivation.
> That webpage is over a decade old, so it lacks that good e-mail programms
> have _three_ reply-buttons: "Reply", "Reply to all" and "Reply to List".
> 
> Most likely we will encounter posters who aren't aware of a "Reply to List"
> button, but hey, we can tell them about it. 
> 
> And while making the change, please remove the footer line
>   'Please do not send private replies to mailing list traffic.' 
> Allow people to learn how to use an e-mail program.
> (Allow them to learn from the mistake of pressing the "Reply-to-All"
> or the "Reply-to-List" button. ( Don't give them the excuse "My message
> was intended as private messsage,
> but the Reply-To-munging made it public! ))
> 
> 
> Groeten
> Geert Stappers
> -- 
> Leven en laten leven
> 

Hi Geert,

Your first point has some relevance, but I disagree with the rest, 
for several reasons.

A_ Having more than one type of reply-buttons doesn't avoid mistakes. 
It wouldn't be the first time we hear about someone sending an email 
to the wrong address(es). IMHO, having a "reply-to" field pointing to 
the distribution list reduces such possibility for its participants.

B_ Not all email clients actively use a "reply-to-list" button. With 
mobility in mind, more and more people use other methods to manage 
emails (as opposed to "proper email clients"). Even in those cases 
were such possibility exists, it may not be displayed by default, so 
the user needs (and should) change the relevant setting, and actually 
use the adequate button, each and every time a reply is intended for 
the distribution list (without inadvertent mistakes).

C_ Receiving an email "by mistake", that should had been sent to the 
mailing list, and then having to "teach" ("instruct") about this, 
sounds like adding more load to the receiver of such email. Then a 
natural question arises. Should such email be ignored, hoping the 
original sender would "get it" by himself? Should the original 
(wrongly sent) email be answered to the original sender? Or perhaps 
should be sent forward to the distribution list? And, should that 
first reply (in whichever of these cases) contain an actual answer to 
the matter of discussion? Or, instead, should only point out that a 
mistake was made, with a request to resend the email to the adequate 
destination (the distribution list)?

D_ "Allow them to learn" sounds, again, additional load for the 
person who is receiving the "unwanted" email.

E_ While receiving such "unwanted" email, should the receiver 
"blindly" open *any* email, independently of the original sender? 
Normally, if the mail arrives from the distribution list (or, it 
includes its address in several of its fields, including the 
"reply-to" field), it is "easier" for the receiver (and for the email 
client's filters) to recognize it as "valid" or "legitimate", even 
when the "From" field shows a particular user (not the list). In 
contrast, when the email arrives "From" the same sender but without 
the mailing list address as real destination, the receiver would (or 
need to) be more careful when opening such email.

Lastly, all those points are based on the assumption that the 
original sender either inadvertently made a mistake, or that he lacks 
of relevant knowledge (about his email client, about this 
distribution list netiquette...). But, additionally, these points are 
assuming that the sender *cares*. So, if he cares, he learns, and 
"life in the distribution list" gets easier.

How many times users need to be reminded to *not* send emails in 
"Top-posting" style to the Syslinux Mailing List? In some cases, it 
is just a one-time occurrence, or a justified exception. But in some 
cases, people just don't care, and will continue to make readers work 
harder. Such participants don't care about "learning". This is, of 
course, just one of many possible examples.

So, what in theory "should" be better (if *everyone* plays fairly), 
doesn't really applies in practice. If the effects were mostly 
"neutral" or mostly "positive", fine. But additional load on the 
shoulders (or fingers) of respectful frequent participants (those who 
actually pay attention, read carefully, answer to others' 
questions...) sounds... well... less than ideal.

Regards,
Ady.