Re: [Phpwiki-talk] Configuration of this list: Reply-To:, acceptance

[Carsten K. <car...@us...>]

On Monday, December 15, 2003, at 01:34  am, Bishop wrote:

>> Hello All,
>>
>> wouldn't it be nice if this list would set the Reply-To: to the list
>> address? Many times I forget to correct the address when answering to
>> the list, and the reply goes to the poster instead of the list.
>
> -1
>
> I don't usually write so much mail to so many people, just so that my 
> mail
> isn't soon seen as 'spam.'  Likewise, although I have procmail weeding 
> out
> these reply-to addresses, my preference is also that lists DON'T force
> replies back to the list.  Replying only to the author of a message -
> unless the message specifically should be one addressed to the entire 
> list
> - and having the author of the original messages assemble a follow-up 
> to
> his/her original post in order summarise the responses, helps keep mail
> traffic down while still keeping the information high.  Signal/noise 
> and
> all that.
>
>> And I would also set the list to accept mail only from subscribers
>> due to two reasons: spammers send mail to this list *), and I don't
>> want to send (successfully) by accident with the mail address of my
>> employer.
>
> +1
>
> While that one's a bit of a hassle to force posters to subscribe, it
> avoids a lot of crap posting from spammers who may be wanting to 
> harvest
> brain dead 'away'/'vacation' messages.  A product of the times, setting
> member-only to posts on a list is now almost a required thing.
>
> In short, I'm all about signal-noise ratios.


I prefer not to force a Repy-To address. Just remember to hit 
"Reply-all" in your email software when replying to a list posting (and 
if needed, then delete either the poster's name from the CC, or the 
list name from CC).

However I *would* like to add a Reply-To header for only the 
phpwiki-checkins list to make sure followups don't get posted to the 
checkins list, rather to phpwiki-talk instead.

Further reading:

Quote from Mailman docs on SF:
> There are many reasons not to introduce or override the Reply-To: 
> header.  One is that some posters depend on their own Reply-To: 
> settings to convey their valid return address.  Another is that 
> modifying Reply-To: makes it much more difficult to send private 
> replies.  See 'Reply-To' Munging Considered Harmful for a general 
> discussion of this issue.  See 'Reply-To Munging Considered Useful' 
> for a dissenting opinion.

Reply-To Munging Considered Useful
http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml

"Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Carsten