In fact I just found adding "Reply-to" on behavior of mailing list server violated the IETF's definition of email.
Accord to the latest RFC 5322(obsoletes RFC 2822, which obsoletes RFC 822) on "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> Apparently, mailing list server is NOT the author of message, so it have no privilege to add this field to the mail. Also, it's recommended to read the article by Chip Rosenthal(which provided by Alex in the previous mail)[2], titled `"Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful`. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2 [2] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html --Sheng On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > OK, I would call a formal vote myself today. > > --Sheng > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote: >> Sheng, >> >> You should setup the vote yourself. The consensus of the thread seems to be >> toward reverting. >> >> I would say for your idea to have a fair chance, you should encourage people >> to read this link [1] specifically before voting. >> >> --Alex >> >> [1] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sh...@yasker.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:44 AM >>> To: Chip Childers >>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Karasulu >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should cloudstack-dev mailing list strip "Reply-to" >>> header? >>> >>> Hi Chip, >>> >>> Could you set up a formal vote thread for this? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> --Sheng >>> On Feb 7, 2013 6:45 AM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >>> >>> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:04:07PM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote: >>> > > Ooops sent this to Brett directly. Thanks for the heads up Brett. >>> > > >>> > >>> > And here's our problem! >>> > >>> > Can we please ask to have the change reverted? >>> > >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org> >>> > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > >> >>> > > >> On 07/02/2013, at 12:05 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> > The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied >>> > mail. >>> > > >> > I don't think that's useful. >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their >>> > > >> > own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep >>> > track >>> > > >> > is better. >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> >>> > > >> This seems like an edge case to me... most of the time a developer >>> > that >>> > > >> contributes to a thread will remember to follow that subject (as I am >>> > doing >>> > > >> here). If that might be a problem, they have alternatives: >>> > > >> - CC themselves on messages they send, so they remain on the CC list >>> > > >> - set up filters to label threads that include their name >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Do these seem like better alternatives than altering the list >>> > reply-to? >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > > I agree with Brett here. Filters are a life saver by the way. >>> > > > >>> > > > Also with the javelin branch merged, some of the envisioned >>> > > > component-ization activities might enable a better mailing list >>> > > > organization. This is all good stuff to consider and possibly take >>> > care of >>> > > > at graduation time if it still seems necessary. WDYT? >>> > > > >>> > > > -- >>> > > > Best Regards, >>> > > > -- Alex >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Best Regards, >>> > > -- Alex >>> >
