Richard Hector <rich...@walnut.gen.nz> writes: > On 06/02/18 02:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2018-02-05 01:53:02 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > > You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that.
For reference, this refers to one of two proposed (but never standardised) fields “Mail-Followup-To” and “Mail-Reply-To” <URL:https://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html>. > I could do that, I'm sure (though I'm not sure how) - but I'd rather > that someone intending to send me a private reply didn't send it to the > list by mistake. Having to (in my case) click 'Reply to List' helps me > not send to the list by mistake. That's correct. The recipient isn't in a position to guess the intention of the person composing the message; the responsibility is on the person composing the reply, to choose “reply to sender” or “reply to list”. If you, when composing a reply, mean to reply to the sender, use that command in your mail client. It will go to the “Reply-To” address, or (if that's not present) the sender address. If you, when composing a reply, mean to reply to the mailing list, use that command in your mail client. It will go to the declared mailing list address (either that, or your mail client is broken for not recognising the mailing list address in every mailing list message). > > This is entirely your problem. > > The behaviour and policy of this list, when followed, does what I > want. Right. In particular the current list behaviour – don't alter or set Reply-To – and Richard's messages – absence of any custom field “Mail-Followup-To” or “Mail-Reply-To” – leaves the default behaviour, and the default behaviour is what Richard wants. There is often a call for changing the mailing list program so that it manipulates the header fields for redirecting replies to sender. This is simply a mistake, as explained in several places, e.g. <URL:http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-still-harmful.html>. I didn't see anyone so far call for that alteration, but it pops up in these discussion too often so the above document bears repeating. As I understand it from this thread, Richard (and I, for what it's worth) do not want to alter the default behaviour of either “reply to sender” nor “reply to list”. Those MUA commands, if implemented per existing standards, will each compose a message to the correct address for the chosen function. So the default behaviour, of the *command chosen by the person composing a reply*, matches the reply behaviour of Richard, and I, for each of the reply commands. This does not need any of us making any special alterations to any message header fields. The person composing a reply is the only one in a position to know whether they want the “reply to sender” or “reply to list” command. (And if they don't have one or both of those commands available, it is only in their power to choose a better MUA.) Don't expect the mailing list, nor individual posters, to second guess you on that. This has all been hashed out here in the past many times, but it is good to refresh the references and facts again. -- \ “I thought I'd begin by reading a poem by Shakespeare, but then | `\ I thought ‘Why should I? He never reads any of mine.’” —Spike | _o__) Milligan | Ben Finney
