Re: [squid-users] Mailing-list admins: can we set up reply-to?

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Robert Collins <robertc_at_squid-cache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 09:43 -0500, Brian Mearns wrote:
>>
>> Even 7 years ago, I don't think this article was really as relevant as
>> the author seems to. If you're using Elm, then fantastic, but I
>> personally have never come across a mail agent that supports "reply to
>> group". The much more common "reply-all" feature is too often a
>> detriment to communications and to the network. Unless the mailing
>> list program is smart enough to detect that someone in the list is
>> also explicitly given as a recipient and removes that address from the
>> list of people to whom the message is sent (I would be fairly
>> surprised and moderately impressed if it did), then reply-all will
>> cause excess traffic on the network and will end up with the previous
>> author receiving two copies.
>
> I would be annoyed at mail software that did that; direct addressed mail
> should be delivered. Users can choose to dedupe mail if they want using
> the unique message-id. (And many mail servers do do this).
>
> As for your assertion that few mail clients support reply to list/reply
> to group; I note that you use gmail, and gmail is pretty feature poor.
> You might try using thunderbird or evolution, both of which support
> reply to list and have for quite some time.

I use gmail because it travels, and I was under the impression (from
earlier in this thread) that Thunderbird does not support this
natively, but requires and extension.

> ...
>> If I was the only one suffering from this problem, I would agree that
>> the issue is mine to resolve. Based on the three other follow -ups
>> that have said the same thing, it seems to me to be a pretty common
>> problem.
>
> The alternate configuration also causes problems. This list has some N
> subscribers, of which 3 agree that they current config confuses them
> from time to time. That doesn't provide any evidence that the other N do
> or don't get confuses, nor that if the configuration is changed what
> number will get confused in the opposite direction.
>
> -Rob
>

It would be N-4, actually, but I get your point. My point was that
there are 4 people (including myself) who have voiced their opinion in
support of my suggestion, 2 who have opposed it, and 2 who have joined
the conversation without expressing support or opposition (please
confirm that, I think I counted correctly). No, this doesn't offer
much of a cross section of the group, but without polling the list,
there's not much of hope of getting one.

Anyway, I think we've wasted more time on this then it takes for me to
just correct the error when I forget to address it correctly, so I'll
just leave my comments as they are and let the mailing list gods make
their decision.

-Brian

-- 
Feel free to contact me using PGP Encryption:
Key Id: 0x3AA70848
Available from: http://keys.gnupg.net