cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hugo Trippaers <HTrippa...@schubergphilis.com>
Subject RE: [VOTE] Revert back to old mailing list mechanism, which would add "Reply-To: mailing list" to every mail it send out
Date Fri, 08 Feb 2013 07:54:04 GMT
+1 (binding)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 5:22 AM
> To: Sheng Yang; Chip Childers; Brett Porter; Animesh Chaturvedi; David
> Nalley; Edison Su; runseb@gmail.com; dkulp@apache.org; Hugo Trippaers;
> shadowsor@gmail.com; somikbehera@vmware.com; Frank Zhang;
> wido@widodh.nl
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Revert back to old mailing list mechanism, which would
> add "Reply-To: mailing list" to every mail it send out
> 
> I'm okay either way.  The only reason why I raised the issue was because I
> believe the original discussion did not conclude with it's ok to strip the reply-
> to header.
> 
> --Alex
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:01 PM
> > To: Chip Childers; Alex Huang; Brett Porter; Animesh Chaturvedi; David
> > Nalley; Edison Su; runseb@gmail.com; dkulp@apache.org;
> > htrippaers@schubergphilis.com; shadowsor@gmail.com;
> > somikbehera@vmware.com; Frank Zhang; wido@widodh.nl
> > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: [VOTE] Revert back to old mailing list mechanism, which would
> > add
> > "Reply-To: mailing list" to every mail it send out
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'd like to call for a vote for reverting back to the old mailing list
> > mechanism, which would add "Reply-To: mailing list" to every mail it
> > send out.
> >
> > And I need to declare that I would vote *-1* on this revert.
> >
> > Whatever you voted in the previous mail, I suggested to read the whole
> > mail before vote.
> >
> > Here are some backgrounds:
> >
> > 1. What's "Reply-To" header
> >
> > Defined by IETF RFC 5322(the latest version of "Internet Message
> > Format")[1], 3.6.2 Originator Fields:
> >
> > <quote>
> > When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
> >    indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests
> >    that replies be sent.
> > </quote>
> >
> > Which means, this option would override the default behavior of
> > replying mail, to send out mail to the specified mailing address
> > (mailing list address in this case) rather than original author of the
> > mail.
> >
> > 2. What's the old mailing list mechanism
> >
> > Long ago, many people familiar with other mailing list like LKML or
> > libvirt realized there is no way to use reply all to the author and
> > this mailing list as we did before on this mailing list. The mail only
> > goes for the mailing list address, not for the author. That's because
> > in the past, this mailing list(cloudstack-dev) added "Reply-To" field
> > to all the mail it sent out, which would override the original author
> > field when others reply the mail. So something like this would happen:
> >
> > Event: A wrote mail X, send to mailing list.
> > Result: X reached other subscribers of mailing list, with "From: A"
> > and "Reply-To: M" (mailing list).
> > Event: B replied the mail X.
> > Result: X reached other subscribers of mailing list, with "From: B"
> > and "Reply-To: M". There is no A mentioned in this mail's header. A
> > would have to check the mail from mailing list to know B replied.
> >
> > 3. What's the new mailing list mechanism(which is happening now).
> >
> > The "Reply-To" has been discard. So every mail come along would go
> > back to it's author as well as the mailing list.
> >
> > Event: A wrote mail X, send to mailing list.
> > Result: X reached other subscribers of mailing list, with "From: A" and "CC:
> > M".
> > Event: B replied the mail X.
> > Result: X reached other subscribers of mailing list, as well as A's
> > mail box directly, with "From: B" and "To/CC: A, M". A would see that
> > in his inbox directly.
> >
> > 4. What's the pro/con of the old approach(I won't vote for this, so
> > you know this may be bias). :
> >
> > Pros:
> > a. Enforcement: It would enforce every communication happened in the
> > mailing list.
> > b. Fix the broken mail client: You don't need to have a mail client
> > support "Reply-to-all" for involving the mailing list.
> >
> > Cons:
> > a. Violate RFC 5322. RFC 5322 said clearly that ONLY "author" can
> > suggest to use "Reply-To" for an alternative address of receiving the
> > reply. Mailing list server is NOT the author of the mail.
> > b. Inefficient: Everyone would setup a filter for mailing list would
> > need to dig the mailing list from time to time to see if there is a
> > response.
> >
> > And here is an very old article on explaining why "Reply-To" is bad
> > thing to do[2]. You can read if you're interested in.
> >
> > 5. What's pro/cons of the new approach:
> >
> > Pros:
> > a. Efficient: Author would receive the mail addressed to his mailbox,
> > so he would know that's a reply(from the mailing list) immedately.
> > b. Consistent: When you in the thread for multiple people, you won't
> > expect "Reply" single would reach all the people. That's why most
> > people always use "Reply-to-All" by default in their daily life.
> > c. Keep people in thread. Even if you're at a long weekend and don't
> > like to be bothered by mailing list but someone replied you on one
> > month old thread, you would know immediately.
> > d. More involving: People don't need to subscribe to the mailing list
> > to involve. Like Wido pointed out, most mailing list is doing this
> > because they encourage the anticipating, even temporarily. You don't
> > need to subscribe to the mailing list to involve in the community, but
> > you still can choose to do so if you think it's good enough for
> > subscribing.
> >
> > Cons:
> > New comer's mistake: It happened when one just begin the community
> > life. Someday he hit "Reply" rather than "Reply-to-all" by mistake.
> > Then mail didn't go to the mailing list.
> >
> > 6. My opinion:
> >
> > a. Inefficient is unacceptable. I don't want to spend any unnecessary
> > time to look through all the mails to find out what's my interested
> > in, especially when I am in a tiger team and had worked for more than
> > 12 hours a day.
> >
> > b. Man made mistakes, but they learned quickly after that. I've
> > learned that as well. In fact I suppose most people would use
> > "Reply-to-All" in the company or daily life, so I don't think it's
> > hard. Anyway, I set "Reply-to-All" by default in all my mail clients,
> > and I expected most of us have done the same.
> >
> > c. Some people said it would encourage offline discussion. I distaste
> > this thought most. It seems you shouldn't been given freedom to choose
> > because we didn't trust you can do the right thing. But it's the trust
> > which build the community, and it's the freedom all Open Source/Free
> > Software about. "Free as in freedom". Yes, this approach just make it
> > easier for people to discuss offline, but does it matter? If you don't
> > trust the people would able to do the right thing, I am afraid even if
> > you tried every method you have to enforce it, they won't help a bit.
> > Community is about people, not about the mailing list. Offline discuss
> > can always happen if people want. Community is an spontaneously
> > organization, not an prison, or Soviet Union. People have right to
> > choose. If you cannot believe they would do the right thing if you
> > give them choice, then this open source community is already done. The
> > Linux kernel mailing list or xen-devel or kvm-devel or libvirt or many
> > other famous mailing list, do it in this way, and none of them hurts
> > because of "encouraging offline discussion".
> >
> > I vote -1 on this change.
> >
> > [1]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322
> > [2]http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> >
> > --Sheng

Mime
View raw message