You can check the behavior by clicking Reply All button (not Reply List) on this message. Example message from our mailing list contains headers: To: dev@lists.roundcube.net Reply-To: dev@lists.roundcube.net From: original@poster.tld
So, current behavior is that you end up with one recipient dev@lists.roundcube.net in To field. Thunderbird for example, will add original@poster.tld in Cc field.
So, the problem is related to Reply-To header handling. Poll:
- Keep current behavior.
- If To: and Reply-To: are the same and From: is different - add From:
address to Cc field.
I prefer current solution (1). Because I think that if Reply-To is defined a senders intention is to not receive replies to his From: address, no matter if Reply, Reply-All or Reply-List is used. I however understand that "private reply" to poster is sometimes wanted.
Hello,
Am 22.03.2013 11:13, schrieb A.L.E.C:
You can check the behavior by clicking Reply All button (not Reply List) on this message. Example message from our mailing list contains headers: To: dev@lists.roundcube.net Reply-To: dev@lists.roundcube.net From: original@poster.tld
So, current behavior is that you end up with one recipient dev@lists.roundcube.net in To field. Thunderbird for example, will add original@poster.tld in Cc field.
So, the problem is related to Reply-To header handling. Poll:
- Keep current behavior.
- If To: and Reply-To: are the same and From: is different - add From:
address to Cc field.
I prefer current solution (1). Because I think that if Reply-To is defined a senders intention is to not receive replies to his From: address, no matter if Reply, Reply-All or Reply-List is used. I however understand that "private reply" to poster is sometimes wanted.
With solution 1, Reply-To and Reply-All do the same for the described scenario, right? Honestly, I don't think this is a good idea. Reply-All should do what its name suggests: reply to all (except my own address).
In my opinion, user mistakes like using Reply-All instead of Reply-To misleadingly are still user mistakes, and shouldn't be covered up by the MUA.
Kind regards, jonas
On 03/22/2013 01:14 PM, Jan Fader wrote:
Am 22.03.2013 11:13, schrieb A.L.E.C:
- If To: and Reply-To: are the same and From: is different - add From:
address to Cc field.
I prefer 2.
IMHO thats the difference between "reply all" and "reply list".
That's not the only difference. Reply-List uses List-Post header if defined.
Please, mind that it's a Reply-All vs. Reply-To header "issue". If there'd be no Reply-To header in a message Reply-All would work as expected: From address goes to To field and To address(es) to Cc field.
So, the problem is only with some messages with defined Reply-To.
Am 22.03.2013 11:13, schrieb A.L.E.C:
So, the problem is related to Reply-To header handling. Poll:
- Keep current behavior.
- If To: and Reply-To: are the same and From: is different - add From:
address to Cc field.
And not only the From: address, but ALL addresses that may appear in the typical headers (Cc:, Sender:, Reply-To:, Mail-Reply-To:, whatever, except the own address and of course by removing dupes).
And not only if To: and Reply-To: are the same, but ALWAYS when "Reply all" has been chosen, no matter if it's a list or a "normal" message. That's what a "Reply all" option promises to (and should) do.
So what should happen, is:
- Standard Reply button: Reply to From: (or to Reply-To:, if existent)
- Reply-All button, option "Reply all": Reply to all (see above)
- Reply-All button, option "Reply list": Reply to list, and ONLY to list
BTW: Is "Sender:" being respected in RC at all...?
I prefer current solution (1). Because I think that if Reply-To is defined a senders intention is to not receive replies to his From: address, no matter if Reply, Reply-All or Reply-List is used.
In the case of this list for instance, there is no such "senders intention", as the Reply-To: header has been set by the list rather than by the sender, right?
I however understand that "private reply" to poster is sometimes wanted.
If I want to make sure to get a reply to one of my list posts to my sender address AND to the list - is there a way at all to set an appropriate Reply-To: header, which will not be changed by Mailman?
Cheers,
Michael Heydekamp Co-Admin freexp.de Düsseldorf/Germany
On 03/22/2013 07:53 PM, Michael Heydekamp wrote:
And not only the From: address, but ALL addresses that may appear in the typical headers (Cc:, Sender:, Reply-To:, Mail-Reply-To:, whatever, except the own address and of course by removing dupes).
And not only if To: and Reply-To: are the same, but ALWAYS when "Reply all" has been chosen, no matter if it's a list or a "normal" message. That's what a "Reply all" option promises to (and should) do.
It's not so simple. What if it isn't a mailing list post. If sender sets Reply-To. So, Reply-To and From are different. I think that sender intention is clear to not send a reply to both of these addresses. No?
I'll say again. In this case we should use From only when Reply-To == To.
BTW: Is "Sender:" being respected in RC at all...?
As a source for reply recipients, no.
I prefer current solution (1). Because I think that if Reply-To is defined a senders intention is to not receive replies to his From: address, no matter if Reply, Reply-All or Reply-List is used.
In the case of this list for instance, there is no such "senders intention", as the Reply-To: header has been set by the list rather than by the sender, right?
So, it's a list intention, doesn't matter.
I however understand that "private reply" to poster is sometimes wanted.
If I want to make sure to get a reply to one of my list posts to my sender address AND to the list - is there a way at all to set an appropriate Reply-To: header, which will not be changed by Mailman?
I don't know, maybe with Mail-Reply-To set to your address. At least Roundcube should use it instead of Reply-To.
Am 22.03.2013 20:10, schrieb A.L.E.C:
On 03/22/2013 07:53 PM, Michael Heydekamp wrote:
And not only the From: address, but ALL addresses that may appear in the typical headers (Cc:, Sender:, Reply-To:, Mail-Reply-To:, whatever, except the own address and of course by removing dupes).
And not only if To: and Reply-To: are the same, but ALWAYS when "Reply all" has been chosen, no matter if it's a list or a "normal" message. That's what a "Reply all" option promises to (and should) do.
It's not so simple. What if it isn't a mailing list post. If sender sets Reply-To. So, Reply-To and From are different. I think that sender intention is clear to not send a reply to both of these addresses. No?
Sure. And if I would want to follow that intention, I'd use the standard reply button.
But if I use the "Reply all" option of the Reply-all button, I don't care about the user's (or the list's) intention, but I do care about my own intention. That's what this option is meant for and what the difference to the function of the standard reply button is. It is ME who wants to reply to all, not the sender. RC currently tries to prevent me from doing that.
But it's just a desperate und useless try, as I can of course enter all recipient addresses manually anyway. But why should I be forced to do it, if I have a Reply all option?
BTW: Is "Sender:" being respected in RC at all...?
As a source for reply recipients, no.
Should be added, IMO. It's a standardized RFC header.
I prefer current solution (1). Because I think that if Reply-To is defined a senders intention is to not receive replies to his From: address, no matter if Reply, Reply-All or Reply-List is used.
In the case of this list for instance, there is no such "senders intention", as the Reply-To: header has been set by the list rather than by the sender, right?
So, it's a list intention, doesn't matter.
It does. Because the list's intention may contradict the sender's intention. See below.
So whose intention should we follow...?
If I want to make sure to get a reply to one of my list posts to my sender address AND to the list - is there a way at all to set an appropriate Reply-To: header, which will not be changed by Mailman?
I don't know, maybe with Mail-Reply-To set to your address.
How can I set Mail-Reply-To: with Roundcube just for a particular message??
At least Roundcube should use it instead of Reply-To.
I digged out a recent discussion in the RC users list, subject "Reply-To issues again". There was a message with a Reply-To: header that clearly pointed to the sender AND to the list (see attached).
Roundcube did (and does still) ignore this Reply-To: header because of even another header: Mail-Reply-To: (set by the list, apparently)
So, at the start of this poll, you claimed that Reply-To: (i.e. the sender's intention) should be respected no matter what, even if "Reply all" had been chosen.
But if a sender sets Reply-To: to his own AND a list address, the sender's intention may be overridden by the list's intention, if expressed through a Mail-Reply-To: header?
Doesn't sound too logical and consistent to me. A list may always override the sender's intention, but a respondent may not be doing the same by chosing "Reply all"...?
Cheers,
Michael Heydekamp Co-Admin freexp.de Düsseldorf/Germany
On 03/22/2013 09:41 PM, Michael Heydekamp wrote:
It's not so simple. What if it isn't a mailing list post. If sender sets Reply-To. So, Reply-To and From are different. I think that sender intention is clear to not send a reply to both of these addresses. No?
Sure. And if I would want to follow that intention, I'd use the standard reply button.
But if I use the "Reply all" option of the Reply-all button, I don't care about the user's (or the list's) intention, but I do care about my own intention. That's what this option is meant for and what the difference to the function of the standard reply button is. It is ME who wants to reply to all, not the sender. RC currently tries to prevent me from doing that.
No, A difference between is in possibility to send a reply to Cc and To addresses of the original message. Not in the Reply-To header handling.
BTW: Is "Sender:" being respected in RC at all...?
As a source for reply recipients, no.
Should be added, IMO. It's a standardized RFC header.
But, that's another story. Create a ticket.
I prefer current solution (1). Because I think that if Reply-To is defined a senders intention is to not receive replies to his From: address, no matter if Reply, Reply-All or Reply-List is used.
In the case of this list for instance, there is no such "senders intention", as the Reply-To: header has been set by the list rather than by the sender, right?
So, it's a list intention, doesn't matter.
It does. Because the list's intention may contradict the sender's intention. See below.
So whose intention should we follow...?
Does not matter whose. It's specified by the message headers.
If I want to make sure to get a reply to one of my list posts to my sender address AND to the list - is there a way at all to set an appropriate Reply-To: header, which will not be changed by Mailman?
I don't know, maybe with Mail-Reply-To set to your address.
How can I set Mail-Reply-To: with Roundcube just for a particular message??
If you set Reply-To, Roundcube will set Mail-Reply-To automatically to the same address.
So, at the start of this poll, you claimed that Reply-To: (i.e. the sender's intention) should be respected no matter what, even if "Reply all" had been chosen.
But if a sender sets Reply-To: to his own AND a list address, the sender's intention may be overridden by the list's intention, if expressed through a Mail-Reply-To: header?
Doesn't sound too logical and consistent to me. A list may always override the sender's intention, but a respondent may not be doing the same by chosing "Reply all"...?
For me it is logical.
+1 for option 2.
+1
On 2013-03-23 08:59, Manfred Usselmann wrote:
Am 22.03.2013 21:20, schrieb Sébastien BLAISOT:
+1 for option 2.
+1
Manfred
Roundcube Development discussion mailing list dev@lists.roundcube.net http://lists.roundcube.net/mailman/listinfo/dev [1]
Links:
-
A.L.E.C -
Jan Fader -
Jonas Meurer -
Lazlo Westerhof -
Manfred Usselmann -
Michael Heydekamp -
Sébastien BLAISOT