[tpop3d-discuss] Reply-To: munging

[Chris Lightfoot]

[Thinks: shouldn't have started this flamewar.]

On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 12:33:49PM -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:09:18AM +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> >     1. replacing a proper reply-to with the list's address
> >        may hide the author's intentions, making it
> >        impossible to reply to an individual author;
> 
> But it doesn't. It simply changes the reply-to which any halfway decent
> email client can override (for example, mutt prompts first the reply-to
> then the from). I.e. this point is scaremongery & FUD at best.

I disagree. If I set a Reply-To:, I presumably have some
good reason to do so; so, if the mailing list software
goes and overwrites it with something else, my intentions
will be lost. This sucks if you are forced to use a From:
header which is not an address at which you can frequently
read mail.

> >     2. not replacing the reply-to with the list's address
> >        may lead to a substantial waste of time and
> >        bandwidth as numerous addresses `snowball' into the
> >        recipients for each message;
> 
> This for me is the clincher. If you're on a community list that is
> encouraging discussion amongst all participants then having to
> constantly trim back To: and Cc: is a waste of time and irritating to
> get dupes. (Yes, I know there are some stunningly opaque procmail
> solutions using databases of message-ids but not all email clients set
> message-ids nor users should have the onerous task of using procmail in
> its more wizardly configurations.)

It's rare indeed to find a message without a message-id
nowadays. (Checks mailspool... OK, out of 6,573 messages I
checked, a stunning 8 lacked a message-id, of which I
suspect most were PINE metadata messages, which don't
count.)

The procmail incantation is... well, it's a procmail
incantation, so one shouldn't expect to understand it. But
as such things go, it's not too bad:

# Discard duplicate mails
:0 Wh: $HOME/.procmail/msgid.lock
| formail -D 8192 $HOME/.procmail/msgid.cache

> > In my opinion, whatever the strength of the other
> > arguments, (1) clinches it. So, on that basis, I don't
> > anticipate changing the list to munge reply-to headers.
> 
> I think it depends on the aim of the list, whether it's intended for
> community discussion or thing where the replies are most likely to go to
> the author. It's not black or white it depends on the situation.
> 
> Incidently, mutt has a 'subscribe' directive which allows you to list
> reply with 'L'. On lists such as this it's very handy.

Yes. Mutt rocks, etc.

-- 
Chris Lightfoot -- www.ex-parrot.com/~chris/
 Never criticise somebody until you have walked a mile in their shoes.
 That way, they're a mile away, and you have their shoes.