cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Huang <Alex.Hu...@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 04:21:32 GMT
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