From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/5514 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Mutt group reply Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 02:03:42 -0400 Message-ID: <20140717060342.GP17402@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20140713163421.GA23050@openwall.com> <53C2D6F8.2040908@skarnet.org> <20140713205859.GA25416@openwall.com> <20140714035144.GQ179@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <53C53A3D.5080409@landley.net> <20140715151248.GB17402@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <53C763B4.4080206@openwrt.org> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1405577057 15324 80.91.229.3 (17 Jul 2014 06:04:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 06:04:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com To: Felix Fietkau Original-X-From: musl-return-5519-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Jul 17 08:04:12 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1X7enY-0003F4-SN for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:04:08 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 13438 invoked by uid 550); 17 Jul 2014 06:04:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 13359 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2014 06:03:57 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53C763B4.4080206@openwrt.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:5514 Archived-At: On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 07:48:36AM +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote: > > 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. GMail's mishandling of threading makes it pretty much completely unusable for working with mailing lists (albeit more convenient for most non-list email usage) so I don't think its behavior is all that relevant. Not sure about Apple Mail. > 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 I'm quite aware that this is a controversial topic with a long history, and I've read all the arguments plenty of times before. To answer your specific questions, if the intent is to actively prevent off-list replies except when someone goes out of their way to do one, then the Reply-to header added by the list is simply doing its job. That's why I like it. Certainly there are a few special situations where it's appropriate to take a reply off-list, but they're the exception not the norm. (And the result reminds me of what happens on IRC when users start private queries with the first person who indicates they might have knowledge on a topic rather than keeping the question in the channel. :-) Rich