[Ffmpeg-devel] reply-to headers and the mailinglist

Måns Rullgård mru
Sat May 7 18:26:48 CEST 2005

Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal.cx> writes:

> On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 11:58:01AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Erik Slagter <erik at slagter.name> writes:
>> > On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 18:20 +0200, Fran?ois Revol wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Setting relpy-to to the list addrss only makes it difficult to reply
>> >> > off-list, if that's what you actually want to do.
>> >> 
>> >> But it's not what I usually want to do.
>> >> 
>> >> If I want to do that I just "Reply to Sender" which does the correct 
>> >> thing.
>> >
>> > Exactly. The default action for a mailing list is to reply to all, not
>> > an individual, otherwise I could hardly call it a mailing list.
>> There is no such thing as a default action.  The users has several
> Yes there is. It's called the "reply" command and it replies to the
> address in the "Reply-to:" header, otherwise the address in the
> "From:" header.

Says who?  When I'm replying to a list posting, I always use the
"reply to all" command, so for me that's the default.

>> commands to choose from, and they do different things.  The normal
>> thing to do when replying to a list posting, is to use the "reply to
>> all" function, which does the right thing, independently of any
>> reply-to header.
> Not it does not! It will reply both to the list AND the sender, which
> doubles the mail traffic and pisses the sender (me) off to no end!!!!

Most mailing list software can be configured not to send mail to
addresses already in the To or Cc headers.  This is usually also the
default setting, so no duplication here.  Furthermore, most mail
server will also filter out duplicate mail.  Should duplicates still
arrive, a good mail reader will filter them.

>> > Also using the definition of the url
>> > (http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html) means that about half
>> > of the mailers is broken. Reminds me of a dutch proverb: "The whole is
>> > mad, said the lunatic." 
>> >
>> > I am not going to switch to another mailer to be more correct according
>> > to some people.
>> Are you saying Evolution doesn't have a  "reply to all" function?  I
>> would consider that broken, ideed.
> Reply to all is NOT THE CORRECT COMMAND! "Reply to list" is the
> correct command, but very few mailers have this, and normally you have
> to tell the mailer all the lists you're subscribed to in order for it
> to work.

Go ask on linux-kernel.  Over there, "reply to all" is the preferred
thing, and for a good reason.  The list traffic is huge, and getting a
private copy of replies makes them easier to spot.  It also has the
advantage, that people can join in one thread, without subscribing to
the list.

M?ns Rullg?rd
mru at inprovide.com

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list