23 Jun
2022
23 Jun
'22
10:28 p.m.
Thanks for doing this. I'm sure it wasn't much fun.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 09:16:00PM +0000, Andy Smith via BitFolk Users wrote:
=== Headers ===
I was confused by some of the headers on the message for a couple of
minutes. Because the changed List-ID defeated my filter making your
message land in my inbox, the followup "Oops" message arrived 7 minutes
before the "announce" one, and the message had these headers:
To: Iain Lane <iain(a)orangesquash.org.uk>
Cc: Andy Smith <andy(a)bitfolk.com>
...I was misled into thinking that you had mailed me directly, like
perhaps I'd expressed an interest in talking about mailing list
configuration in the past and you wanted to chat to me about it. I'm
used to looking at To to see where the poster sent the message to and
this made me think it was a direct mail.
Is there a reason for doing it like this, or could it be changed to the
'traditional' way?
(This is not hugely important. I'm sure I can adjust.)
=== Reply-To: added, no more "users-replyto"
===
[…]
It should also be noted that one of the objections to Reply-To:
munging is that it can remove all information about where the
author wants replies to go. In Mailman3's case, if you supply
Reply-To: headers of your own then it adds them, so that objection
doesn't hold.
Speaking for me personally, I'm happy with setting a default Reply-To
but I don't like the behaviour of Mailman 3 where it concatenates the
list's Reply-To with my supplied one. If I put a Reply-To on a list mail
it's because I want replies to go elsewhere and *not* to the list (or if
I do, I'll include the list's address myself). I wish this could be
changed but I'm not sure it can with the knobs Mailman 3 providers.
Cheers,
--
Iain Lane [ iain(a)orangesquash.org.uk ]
Debian Developer [ laney(a)debian.org ]
Ubuntu Developer [ laney(a)ubuntu.com ]