"Charles Lindsey" <chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> writes:
* Should replies to list postings *generally* go only to the list or to
the list and the user, as a matter of list culture?
Speaking *generally*, the list-owner is in the best position to know the
culture, and that will affect how he fills in whatever header he chooses
to insert.
I disagree. My view is that the originator is in the best position to
decide his or her own wishes for what should happen with the post.
The list owner should, ideally, be able to "help" members understand
the culture used on a specific list, but shouldn't impose it on list
members (by, for example, adding 'Reply-To: list(_at_)example(_dot_)org'). This
is especially important when messages are cross-posted to several
list, that may have different cultures.
* Does the individual user want copies of list postings? This is what
MFT expresses clearly when used fully, and it deals with such issues as
"crossposts" between multiple mailing lists. This should probably
override the list default in nearly all cases, if expressed.
Yes, MFT can do the best job when used correctly, but it only works best
when used in conjunction with a MUA that is pre-configured with a list of
known mailing lists and instructions as to how that user wants each one
treated (and it is the _only_ method with any chance of processing
cross-posts to several lists correctly and automatically).
But I guess attempts by a user to fill MFT in manually would be too much
for 'unsophisticated' users. OTOH, it would make good sense for the
list-owner to fill it in it not provided by the user (because the
list-owner shouls know whether that user is on the list).
But relying on the User to fill in Reply-To would be even worse (indeed
any solution that requires manual action by the user on _every_ response
to a list is doomed from the start). In particular, use of Reply-To is the
Wrong Thing if the replier really does want to reply to the author and ot
to the list. OTOH it does work quite well when inserted by the
list-expander in particular lists with a culture suited to it.
Mail-Copies-To is all right so far as it goes, but it only tackles some of
the problems. I think, on balance, I would prefer Mail-Followups-To.
We are in agreement here.
What appears to be necessary is a mechanism for less technically
oriented users to end up with a "correct" MFT setting. Perhaps auto
populated by the MUA based on some, new, header added by mailing list
software. OTOH, perhaps less technically oriented users doesn't care
about the problems that motivate use of MFT, so they don't need it
until they realize those problems.
Thanks,
Simon