Well, when I was using mutt, I was always replied mails using "A"(binding to "reply-to-all"). By this way, I don't need to use R or A based on if it's mailing list or not. It's easier for me.
Anyway, 72 hours passed. The VOTE result is we would revert back to old mailing list style. I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5850 to track this. Thanks! --Sheng On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: > +1 (binding) to revert. > > Note that, had I replied in Mutt rather than my Webmail client, the > default behavior would have been to just send my reply directly to Sheng > rather than the ML. > > When I'm replying to a mailing list, I expect "reply" to send my reply > to the mailing list, and not the initial sender. Breaking that behavior > is not optimal, IMHO. Yes, we can conditional ourselves to "Reply-All," > but that goes against the grain to the other dozen or so mailing lists > that I'm subscribed to. > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 06:00 PM, Sheng Yang wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I'd like to call for a vote for reverting back to the old mailing list >> mechanism, which would add "Reply-To: mailing list" to every mail it >> send out. >> >> And I need to declare that I would vote *-1* on this revert. >> >> Whatever you voted in the previous mail, I suggested to read the whole >> mail before vote. >> >> Here are some backgrounds: >> >> 1. What's "Reply-To" header >> >> Defined by IETF RFC 5322(the latest version of "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> >> >> Which means, this option would override the default behavior of >> replying mail, to send out mail to the specified mailing address >> (mailing list address in this case) rather than original author of the >> mail. >> >> 2. What's the old mailing list mechanism >> >> Long ago, many people familiar with other mailing list like LKML or >> libvirt realized there is no way to use reply all to the author and >> this mailing list as we did before on this mailing list. The mail only >> goes for the mailing list address, not for the author. That's because >> in the past, this mailing list(cloudstack-dev) added "Reply-To" field >> to all the mail it sent out, which would override the original author >> field when others reply the mail. So something like this would happen: >> >> Event: A wrote mail X, send to mailing list. >> Result: X reached other subscribers of mailing list, with "From: A" >> and "Reply-To: M" (mailing list). >> Event: B replied the mail X. >> Result: X reached other subscribers of mailing list, with "From: B" >> and "Reply-To: M". There is no A mentioned in this mail's header. A >> would have to check the mail from mailing list to know B replied. >> >> 3. What's the new mailing list mechanism(which is happening now). >> >> The "Reply-To" has been discard. So every mail come along would go >> back to it's author as well as the mailing list. >> >> Event: A wrote mail X, send to mailing list. >> Result: X reached other subscribers of mailing list, with "From: A" and >> "CC: M". >> Event: B replied the mail X. >> Result: X reached other subscribers of mailing list, as well as A's >> mail box directly, with "From: B" and "To/CC: A, M". A would see that >> in his inbox directly. >> >> 4. What's the pro/con of the old approach(I won't vote for this, so >> you know this may be bias). : >> >> Pros: >> a. Enforcement: It would enforce every communication happened in the >> mailing list. >> b. Fix the broken mail client: You don't need to have a mail client >> support "Reply-to-all" for involving the mailing list. >> >> Cons: >> a. Violate RFC 5322. RFC 5322 said clearly that ONLY "author" can >> suggest to use "Reply-To" for an alternative address of receiving the >> reply. Mailing list server is NOT the author of the mail. >> b. Inefficient: Everyone would setup a filter for mailing list would >> need to dig the mailing list from time to time to see if there is a >> response. >> >> And here is an very old article on explaining why "Reply-To" is bad >> thing to do[2]. You can read if you're interested in. >> >> 5. What's pro/cons of the new approach: >> >> Pros: >> a. Efficient: Author would receive the mail addressed to his mailbox, >> so he would know that's a reply(from the mailing list) immedately. >> b. Consistent: When you in the thread for multiple people, you won't >> expect "Reply" single would reach all the people. That's why most >> people always use "Reply-to-All" by default in their daily life. >> c. Keep people in thread. Even if you're at a long weekend and don't >> like to be bothered by mailing list but someone replied you on one >> month old thread, you would know immediately. >> d. More involving: People don't need to subscribe to the mailing list >> to involve. Like Wido pointed out, most mailing list is doing this >> because they encourage the anticipating, even temporarily. You don't >> need to subscribe to the mailing list to involve in the community, but >> you still can choose to do so if you think it's good enough for >> subscribing. >> >> Cons: >> New comer's mistake: It happened when one just begin the community >> life. Someday he hit "Reply" rather than "Reply-to-all" by mistake. >> Then mail didn't go to the mailing list. >> >> 6. My opinion: >> >> a. Inefficient is unacceptable. I don't want to spend any unnecessary >> time to look through all the mails to find out what's my interested >> in, especially when I am in a tiger team and had worked for more than >> 12 hours a day. >> >> b. Man made mistakes, but they learned quickly after that. I've >> learned that as well. In fact I suppose most people would use >> "Reply-to-All" in the company or daily life, so I don't think it's >> hard. Anyway, I set "Reply-to-All" by default in all my mail clients, >> and I expected most of us have done the same. >> >> c. Some people said it would encourage offline discussion. I distaste >> this thought most. It seems you shouldn't been given freedom to choose >> because we didn't trust you can do the right thing. But it's the trust >> which build the community, and it's the freedom all Open Source/Free >> Software about. "Free as in freedom". Yes, this approach just make it >> easier for people to discuss offline, but does it matter? If you don't >> trust the people would able to do the right thing, I am afraid even if >> you tried every method you have to enforce it, they won't help a bit. >> Community is about people, not about the mailing list. Offline discuss >> can always happen if people want. Community is an spontaneously >> organization, not an prison, or Soviet Union. People have right to >> choose. If you cannot believe they would do the right thing if you >> give them choice, then this open source community is already done. The >> Linux kernel mailing list or xen-devel or kvm-devel or libvirt or many >> other famous mailing list, do it in this way, and none of them hurts >> because of "encouraging offline discussion". >> >> I vote -1 on this change. >> >> [1]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322 >> [2]http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html >> >> --Sheng > > > Best, > > jzb > -- > Joe Brockmeier > j...@zonker.net > Twitter: @jzb > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
