On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 14:23:01 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 16:10:37 (+0200), Nicolas George wrote: > > Le quartidi 14 fructidor, an CCXXIV, David Wright a écrit : > > > The error might have been mine. I think I CC'd Lisi in error. > > > The other list I'm on expects people to group-reply. > > > I forgot myself. > > After some experiments, I think I have to withdraw that explanation. > Group-reply would have put > To: Lisi ..., debian-user@lists.debian.org > whereas my posting had > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Cc: Lisi ... > which is what list-reply writes¹. > > In fact, the problem was that the posting I replied to had > Mail-Followup-To: Lisi ..., debian-user@lists.debian.org > in the header, which mutt dutifully obeyed *and* copied into my reply.
You were also a victim, like me. The source of the infection remains at large and is still active. > I might have spotted that Lisi was CC'd, but the copying of > Mail-Followup-To into my posting happens behind the scenes, > like handling References. Does "ask-no" help? Or going the whole hog with "no"? > I suppose I could set a blank Mail-Followup-To in my composition > editor to prevent its auto-generation. (I don't do anything > sophisticated like posting to multiple lists.) But that might defeat > people who use Mail-Followup-To as a way of receiving replies without > being subscribed to the list, so maybe that's not a good idea. Of the approximately 14,000 mails in my -user archive about 1000 have a MFT header. Out of that 1000 the vast majority designate -user@l.d.o as the only place where the mail should go to. About 10 have a user's address only; 0.1%. Decision time. > > Systematic group-reply is the correct way of using mailing-lists, because it > > is the only way that does not require the user to waste time for each mail > > deciding the proper key to hit. > > > > This clause of the code of conduct is unsustainable, and therefore should be > > ignored until the configuration is fixed and the corresponding clause > > updated. > > > > In the meantime, let the whiners whine; the non-whiners can unilaterally fix > > things for themselves by setting the reply-to header, just like you or me. > > Yes, I can't understand why more people don't set it. Try harder :). -- Brian. Not a whiner but happy with "L", "r" and "g" in Mutt.
