cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Frank Zhang <Frank.Zh...@citrix.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 00:02:17 GMT
-1

> -----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