geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tetsuya Kitahata <tets...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] change Reply-To to go to geronimo-dev
Date Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:56:20 GMT

http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail.html
http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml

We, Japanese, generally use the term "Mailing List" as what appends
"Reply-To" Header properly to the same address.
Without "Reply-To" Header, it will be called as "Mail Magazine"
or something equivalent.
For example, "announcements@jakarta" is not "mailing list" by
our strict definition, because this list (address) appends
"Reply-To: general@jakarta" Header automatically, not
"Reply-To: announcements@jakarta" Header.

*Mailing list* is something "for discussion"
*Mail Magazine* is something "one-way traffic"
... explicit explanation ;-)

Again and again,
http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml
and
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail.html
("Watch where you are sending email." section)

-- Tetsuya (tetsuya@apache.org)

P.S. We, Japanese, are not accustomed to such lists as
would not append "Reply-To" and would have no "[listname:seq-num]"
prefixed subject... This is true... Cultural-conflict! :D

--

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:18:47 +0100 (BST)
(Subject: Re: [VOTE] change Reply-To to go to geronimo-dev)
Andrew Savory <andrew@luminas.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> 
> > With the Reply-To set to the list, you don't have to remember to reply
> > to all to get it to the list.
> >
> > Please vote.
> >
> > +1 from me
> 
> Not a committer, but -1 for the following reasons:
> 
> # It violates the principle of minimal munging.
> # It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer.
> # It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will direct a
> response.
> # It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer.
> # It removes important information, which can make it impossible to get
> back to the message sender.
> # It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to coddle
> those running brain-dead software.
> # It violates the principle of least work because complicates the
> procedure for replying to messages.
> # It violates the principle of least surprise because it changes the way a
> mailer works.
> # It violates the principle of least damage, and it encourages a failure
> mode that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse.
> # Your subscribers don't want you to do it. Or, at least the ones who have
> bothered to read the docs for their mailer don't want you to do it.
> 
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> 
> 
> Andrew.


Mime
View raw message