Should we change the reply-to setting?
Currently, the mailing list changes all the "reply-to" headers to the list's e-mail address. This forces all replies to go to the list and loses any custom e-mail address the sender may have added. I've read "'Reply-To' Munging Considered Harmful" <http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html> and now wonder if we should change our policy. (Unfortunately for me, I think I use that field from sorting my e-mail. So the list's e-mail should still be around in posts so I can sort them.) -- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com
I for one am for this. A few times I've sent mails directly to the author of a posting, and it's been a bit of an annoyance to 1. Create a new message 2. Copy/paste the address of the recipient 3. Copy/paste the context of the message 4. Finally type out the message. The author of that article makes a good point about mail clients. Any client worth its salt will have some sort of "Reply to All" feature. Bryan Ross daerid@gmail.com
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Daryle Walker Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 10:33 AM To: Boost mailing list Subject: [boost] Should we change the reply-to setting?
Currently, the mailing list changes all the "reply-to" headers to the list's e-mail address. This forces all replies to go to the list and loses any custom e-mail address the sender may have added. I've read "'Reply-To' Munging Considered Harmful" <http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to- harmful.html> and now wonder if we should change our policy. (Unfortunately for me, I think I use that field from sorting my e-mail. So the list's e-mail should still be around in posts so I can sort them.)
-- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:42:41 -0700 "Bryan Ross" <daerid@gmail.com> wrote:
I for one am for this. A few times I've sent mails directly to the author of a posting, and it's been a bit of an annoyance to
1. Create a new message 2. Copy/paste the address of the recipient 3. Copy/paste the context of the message 4. Finally type out the message.
The author of that article makes a good point about mail clients. Any client worth its salt will have some sort of "Reply to All" feature.
I haven't read it, and have no opinion either way, but if your mail client has "reply-to-all" why can't you "reply-to-all" and just remove the boost mailing list entry. That's a lot easier than the steps you say you use currently...
Just to clarify, my mail client does have reply-to-all. The unfortunate thing is that Reply To All and Reply both go to boost@lists.boost.org So there is my conundrum. On 7/21/06, Jody Hagins <jody-boost-011304@atdesk.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:42:41 -0700 "Bryan Ross" <daerid@gmail.com> wrote:
I for one am for this. A few times I've sent mails directly to the author of a posting, and it's been a bit of an annoyance to
1. Create a new message 2. Copy/paste the address of the recipient 3. Copy/paste the context of the message 4. Finally type out the message.
The author of that article makes a good point about mail clients. Any client worth its salt will have some sort of "Reply to All" feature.
I haven't read it, and have no opinion either way, but if your mail client has "reply-to-all" why can't you "reply-to-all" and just remove the boost mailing list entry. That's a lot easier than the steps you say you use currently...
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Sebastian Redl wrote:
Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
Just tested here, mine too. (Gmail)
Submit a bug report. This behaviour differs from the de-facto standard set by most other clients.
I guess Thunderbird has the same bug then ;-) -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
On 7/22/06 4:13 PM, "Sebastian Redl" <sebastian.redl@getdesigned.at> wrote:
Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
Just tested here, mine too. (Gmail)
Submit a bug report. This behaviour differs from the de-facto standard set by most other clients.
From what I see from other responses in this thread, I'm not sure that there really is a de-facto standard. It is implementation-defined which fields a reply-to-all function should look at. A key point I'm trying to make is that the "reply-to" field is supposed to override the "from" field, so you shouldn't look at both fields when composing a reply-to-all.
-- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com
On 7/21/06 3:09 PM, "Jody Hagins" <jody-boost-011304@atdesk.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:42:41 -0700 "Bryan Ross" <daerid@gmail.com> wrote:
I for one am for this. A few times I've sent mails directly to the author of a posting, and it's been a bit of an annoyance to
1. Create a new message 2. Copy/paste the address of the recipient 3. Copy/paste the context of the message 4. Finally type out the message.
The author of that article makes a good point about mail clients. Any client worth its salt will have some sort of "Reply to All" feature.
I haven't read it, and have no opinion either way, but if your mail client has "reply-to-all" why can't you "reply-to-all" and just remove the boost mailing list entry. That's a lot easier than the steps you say you use currently...
A point of the original message was that putting the Boost e-mail address into the "reply-to" field _replaces_ whatever was there and forces the "from" field to be ignored, so reply-to-all is worthless. The exception is e-mail clients that wrongly always use the "from" field to send back messages. (In the sub-thread about people getting automated vacation messages, the vacationer's client probably does this.) The point of having a "reply-to" field is to help when a user's send and receive addresses differ. -- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com
I know something even BETTER to fix with the list... People who put the list on auto-responder. I just got the following email... I'm out of office from 24/07/2006 to 28/07/2006 For questions please contact Clearvision - Sascha Mungenas (40591) Rolfe & Nolan - Ekkehard Gramss (44163) I don't care!!! I have no idea who this person is, but Christian obviously thinks it a grand idea to send email to ME telling me he is out of the office. Apparantly, his auto-responder knows not to use the Reply-To field since the message came back to me, and did not show up on the list ;-) Maybe Sascha or Ekkehard know how to disable Christian's auto responder... Seriously, this happens every now and then (I do not post often, so I can only assume it happens more frequently to Dave and the others). I also understand that it is always a mistake. However, since they ignore the Reply-To address, and reply straight to me (and you), what can be done? Anyone have any advice there?
On Jul 21, 2006, at 3:35 PM, Jody Hagins wrote:
I know something even BETTER to fix with the list...
People who put the list on auto-responder. I just got the following email...
[ugh]
Seriously, this happens every now and then (I do not post often, so I can only assume it happens more frequently to Dave and the others). I also understand that it is always a mistake. However, since they ignore the Reply-To address, and reply straight to me (and you), what can be done?
The bad news is that the only way we've found to combat this problem is to have a moderator turn off mail delivery for this person. So, you'll need to wait until a moderator posts to the list, gets annoyed by the auto-responder, and turns off Christian's mail delivery. The good news is that I'm a moderator and I'm *really* grumpy today ;-) Doug
"Jody Hagins" <jody-boost-011304@atdesk.com> skrev i meddelandet news:20060721153545.2657a915.jody-boost-011304@atdesk.com...
I know something even BETTER to fix with the list...
People who put the list on auto-responder. I just got the following email...
I'm out of office from 24/07/2006 to 28/07/2006 For questions please contact Clearvision - Sascha Mungenas (40591) Rolfe & Nolan - Ekkehard Gramss (44163)
I don't care!!! I have no idea who this person is, but Christian obviously thinks it a grand idea to send email to ME telling me he is out of the office. Apparantly, his auto-responder knows not to use the Reply-To field since the message came back to me, and did not show up on the list ;-)
To poor Cristian's defence: I recognize this, we have the same software! Sometimes there is just too much automation in the systems. Before leaving the office I (and Christian) have to disable the phone, by keying in "Vacation, 1 week". The company's automated exchange software then *automatically* enters this into my/Christian's calendar and enables the out-of-office response to all incoming mails. To exclude someone from this, we would have to add you to the "don't reply to"-list, not to any auto-responder! The only advantage is that it will keep a list of all incoming mail, and only respond once to each sender. Bo Persson
"Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk> skrev i meddelandet news:e9rc91$vh2$1@sea.gmane.org...
"Jody Hagins" <jody-boost-011304@atdesk.com> skrev i meddelandet news:20060721153545.2657a915.jody-boost-011304@atdesk.com...
I know something even BETTER to fix with the list...
People who put the list on auto-responder. I just got the following email...
I'm out of office from 24/07/2006 to 28/07/2006 For questions please contact Clearvision - Sascha Mungenas (40591) Rolfe & Nolan - Ekkehard Gramss (44163)
I don't care!!! I have no idea who this person is, but Christian obviously thinks it a grand idea to send email to ME telling me he is out of the office. Apparantly, his auto-responder knows not to use the Reply-To field since the message came back to me, and did not show up on the list ;-)
To poor Cristian's defence:
I recognize this, we have the same software! Sometimes there is just too much automation in the systems.
Before leaving the office I (and Christian) have to disable the phone, by keying in "Vacation, 1 week".
The company's automated exchange software then *automatically* enters this into my/Christian's calendar and enables the out-of-office response to all incoming mails.
To exclude someone from this, we would have to add you to the "don't reply to"-list, not to any auto-responder!
The only advantage is that it will keep a list of all incoming mail, and only respond once to each sender.
Bo Persson
And even better: Of course now I also got a response from Christian's mail box, sent to my home address, not the mailing list. :-) Bo Persson
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:09:09 +0200 "Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk> wrote:
The company's automated exchange software then *automatically* enters this into my/Christian's calendar and enables the out-of-office response to all incoming mails.
That is bad policy. How about subscribing to the list with an email address that does not automatically respond when you are away?
"Jody Hagins" <jody-boost-011304@atdesk.com> skrev i meddelandet news:20060724113638.005a414e.jody-boost-011304@atdesk.com...
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:09:09 +0200 "Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk> wrote:
The company's automated exchange software then *automatically* enters this into my/Christian's calendar and enables the out-of-office response to all incoming mails.
That is bad policy.
Tell that to the IT manager. :-) It really isn't that easy though. If you have a position with lots of customer contacts, you just cannot be silent for a week or two, you must respond to all unknown senders. That's why there is a don't-reply-to option instead of an auto-reply list. I noticed from Christian's address that we both work for banks, so I recognized the problem. Being in a back-office position, I can check the don't-reply-to-internet option, but not everyone can afford to do that.
How about subscribing to the list with an email address that does not automatically respond when you are away?
So I am using my home address for this list. ok? :-) Bo Persson
Daryle Walker <darylew@hotmail.com> writes:
Currently, the mailing list changes all the "reply-to" headers to the list's e-mail address. This forces all replies to go to the list and loses any custom e-mail address the sender may have added. I've read "'Reply-To' Munging Considered Harmful" <http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html> and now wonder if we should change our policy.
The mods read that when setting the policy originally and we decided it was not a good choice for Boost. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
On 7/22/06 8:26 AM, "David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Daryle Walker <darylew@hotmail.com> writes:
Currently, the mailing list changes all the "reply-to" headers to the list's e-mail address. This forces all replies to go to the list and loses any custom e-mail address the sender may have added. I've read "'Reply-To' Munging Considered Harmful" <http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html> and now wonder if we should change our policy.
The mods read that when setting the policy originally and we decided it was not a good choice for Boost.
Even though the alterations (currently) obliterate whatever the original poster may have had in the "reply-to" field? This cripples senders that must use a separate receiving address. Since the "reply-to" field is supposed to override the "from" field, reply-to -all and -sender-only functions are also messed up. -- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com
Daryle Walker <darylew@hotmail.com> writes:
On 7/22/06 8:26 AM, "David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Daryle Walker <darylew@hotmail.com> writes:
Currently, the mailing list changes all the "reply-to" headers to the list's e-mail address. This forces all replies to go to the list and loses any custom e-mail address the sender may have added. I've read "'Reply-To' Munging Considered Harmful" <http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html> and now wonder if we should change our policy.
The mods read that when setting the policy originally and we decided it was not a good choice for Boost.
Even though the alterations (currently) obliterate whatever the original poster may have had in the "reply-to" field?
Yes
This cripples senders that must use a separate receiving address.
I don't know what that means.
Since the "reply-to" field is supposed to override the "from" field, reply-to -all and -sender-only functions are also messed up.
Yes, sender-only is an unfortunate casualty. The upside is that when you reply to a message in the usual way, it goes to the list. Otherwise, IIRC, it ends up going to some individual instead of the list, and then I at least don't notice that my reply went out privately... or it goes to the individual _and_ the list, and people get multiple copies of the same message. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
On 7/22/06 7:54 PM, "David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote: [I said:]
This cripples senders that must use a separate receiving address.
I don't know what that means.
Someone may use one e-mail address to send messages and a different to receive them (for example, send from work and receive from home). To support this, the user puts his sending address under "from" and the receiving under "reply-to". If the "reply-to" field is completely altered, then the user can't get any (semi-)private replies. -- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com
David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
I don't know what that means.
Isn't Mail-Followup-To meant to solve these problems? http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html -- Steven E. Harris
participants (10)
-
Bo Persson -
Bryan Ross -
Daryle Walker -
David Abrahams -
Doug Gregor -
Felipe Magno de Almeida -
Jody Hagins -
Rene Rivera -
Sebastian Redl -
Steven E. Harris