Hi All,
Anyone had the following problem?
When replying to a new mailing list posting with "reply all", the reply goes only To: the mailing list.
Expected behavior: To: the person, Cc: to the mailing list.
The message in question has no Reply-To: header or anything of the sort. The relevant headers are just:
From: user@gmail.com
To: mailinglist@example.com
I'm a subscriber of the mailing list. I hit Reply All, and I get only one address: "mailinglist@example.com".
Unless there is a Reply-To: header, the From: address must be one of the To: recipients!
On 2014-01-14 16:12, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
Hi All,
Anyone had the following problem?
When replying to a new mailing list posting with "reply all", the reply goes only To: the mailing list.
Expected behavior: To: the person, Cc: to the mailing list.
The message in question has no Reply-To: header or anything of the sort. The relevant headers are just:
From: user@gmail.com
To: mailinglist@example.com
I'm a subscriber of the mailing list. I hit Reply All, and I get only one address: "mailinglist@example.com".
Unless there is a Reply-To: header, the From: address must be one of the To: recipients!
Default behavior of the Reply-all button is to reply-list if a list is detected. Note the small drop arrow next to the Reply-all button.
My organization found that behavior very annoying, so we made some feature requests. The devs implemented my favorite in version 1.0-beta - http://trac.roundcube.net/ticket/1488734 [1]
Assuming you are not using the beta version, you can tweak the code to eliminate this behavior globally if you wish. It's documented in the ticket above.
I know about the "Reply List" thing; I neglected to mention, in fact, that I tried both "Reply All" and manually invoking "Reply List", with identical results.
Look; "Reply All" is obviously doing the right thing now as I post this reply. It's going to you, Arne, and Cc: to the RCU list!
So does that mean that it did, or that it didn't detect a mailing list?
(Is this feature tested only against the RCU list?)
I don't agree with "Reply All" doing a "Reply List" if a mailing list is detected. The proper way to reply to a mailing list is "Reply All". Which means ...
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR A "REPLY LIST" MISFEATURE.
FOR USERS WHO REALLY WANT THIS, THE BUTTON SHOULD BE CALLED "CLICK HERE TO REPLY IN A MORONIC WAY IF YOU THINK THAT RFC STANDS FOR SOME SORT OF FRIED CHICKEN FRANCHISE".
On 14.01.2014 16:30, Arne Berglund wrote:
On 2014-01-14 16:12, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
Hi All,
Anyone had the following problem?
When replying to a new mailing list posting with "reply all", the reply goes only To: the mailing list.
Expected behavior: To: the person, Cc: to the mailing list.
The message in question has no Reply-To: header or anything of the sort. The relevant headers are just:
From: user@gmail.com
To: mailinglist@example.com
I'm a subscriber of the mailing list. I hit Reply All, and I get only one address: "mailinglist@example.com".
Unless there is a Reply-To: header, the From: address must be one of the To: recipients!
Default behavior of the Reply-all button is to reply-list if a list is detected. Note the small drop arrow next to the Reply-all button.
My organization found that behavior very annoying, so we made some feature requests. The devs implemented my favorite in version 1.0-beta - http://trac.roundcube.net/ticket/1488734 [1]
Assuming you are not using the beta version, you can tweak the code to eliminate this behavior globally if you wish. It's documented in the ticket above.
Links:
Of course, doh, that's because Arne's message was not from the list manager; but directly to me!
(Which is the correct way to do things).
On 14.01.2014 16:46, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
Look; "Reply All" is obviously doing the right thing now as I post this reply. It's going to you, Arne, and Cc: to the RCU list!
On 2014-01-14 7:46 PM, Kaz Kylheku kaz@kylheku.com wrote:
I know about the "Reply List" thing; I neglected to mention, in fact, that I tried both "Reply All" and manually invoking "Reply List", with identical results.
Look; "Reply All" is obviously doing the right thing now as I post this reply. It's going to you, Arne, and Cc: to the RCU list!
So does that mean that it did, or that it didn't detect a mailing list?
(Is this feature tested only against the RCU list?)
I don't agree with "Reply All" doing a "Reply List" if a mailing list is detected. The proper way to reply to a mailing list is "Reply All". Which means ...
*There is absolutely no need for a "Reply List" misfeature.*
Au contraire... 'Reply-To-List' is extremely important, and extremely useful.
However, I believe that invoking it when 'Reply-All' is used is just plain broken. It should only be invoked when the ordinary 'Reply' is used.
Reply-All should remain Reply-All.
*For users who really want this, the button should be called "Click here to reply in a moronic way if you think that RFC stands for some sort of fried chicken franchise".*
What is moronic is someone clicking 'Reply-All' on a discussion list and sending duplicate emails to the sender. Reply-To-List solves that problem nicely - for anyone with half a brain that learns how to use it.
Sadly, there are far too many moronic users, even on the technical side of things.
On 15.01.2014 09:28, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2014-01-14 7:46 PM, Kaz Kylheku kaz@kylheku.com wrote:
I know about the "Reply List" thing; I neglected to mention, in fact, that I tried both "Reply All" and manually invoking "Reply List", with identical results.
Look; "Reply All" is obviously doing the right thing now as I post this reply. It's going to you, Arne, and Cc: to the RCU list!
So does that mean that it did, or that it didn't detect a mailing list?
(Is this feature tested only against the RCU list?)
I don't agree with "Reply All" doing a "Reply List" if a mailing list is detected. The proper way to reply to a mailing list is "Reply All". Which means ...
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR A "REPLY LIST" MISFEATURE.
Au contraire... 'Reply-To-List' is extremely important, and extremely useful.
However, I believe that invoking it when 'Reply-All' is used is just plain broken. It should only be invoked when the ordinary 'Reply' is used.
Reply should reply to the sender: the person on the From: line, period.
If Reply turns into Reply List, then the sender will not necessarily receive the reply. He or she will receive the list copy---if he or she is subscribed to the list.
Mailing lists can and some do allow posts from non-subscribers.
Also, mailing list discussions can have one or more non-subscribers in the loop.
For instance, say I fire off a question to some technical list. I could CC: my boss on that. The replies should also CC: to my boss. I may or may not be a subscriber of the list; the boss certainly isn't.
People who don't agree with these productive and reasonable uses of mailing lists are dickheads and I don't want to listen to a single thing I have to say. At least, not until they subscribe to both my ears individually, fill in three catpchas and validate their e-mail.
Reply-All should remain Reply-All.
FOR USERS WHO REALLY WANT THIS, THE BUTTON SHOULD BE CALLED "CLICK HERE TO REPLY IN A MORONIC WAY IF YOU THINK THAT RFC STANDS FOR SOME SORT OF FRIED CHICKEN FRANCHISE".
What is moronic is someone clicking 'Reply-All' on a discussion list and sending duplicate emails to the sender. Reply-To-List solves that problem nicely - for anyone with half a brain that learns how to use it.
This alleged problem is a myth. I've always used Reply All in mailing lists and never ran into this.
The reason is, doh, that anything that can be called a viable mailing list manager squashes duplicates. It pays attention to what is on the To: and Cc: headers, and reconciles that with the distribution list.
GNU Mailman actually makes it a per-user option. If you're on a GNU Mailman list and are getting duplicates: "list copies" as well as direct replies, then turn off the list copies (and ask the maintainer to make the 'off" setting a default for new users).
Any remaining duplicate issues are something weird, like someone using Bcc: so the mailing list robot doesn't know the other recipients. Or bugs in the mailing list manager such as, oh, your registered mail differs in case from the one in the Cc: list, and the software uses a case-sensitive string comparison when looking for dupes.
As the maintainer of a mailing-list manager, and as a user of mailing lists, I thought I would chip in.
I think there are uses for all three scenarios: (1) reply to sender (only), (2) reply to list (only), (3) reply to all (sender, list and any CCs).
(1) is useful for private replies.
(2) is useful for replies to the list. It can be particularly handy
for continuing a conversation where the OP, who started the thread,
was not the sender of the mail you are replying to, or if you are
going a little off topic.
(3) is useful for keeping non-subscribers in the loop, or for
providing a direct copy to the sender. It is not true that all MLMs,
or even that all decent MLMs, do recipient filtering to avoid
duplicates of this kind. There are a number of reasons for not doing
so. Two were already mentioned: it's not really possible in light of
things such as BCC and multiple addresses reaching the same mailbox.
Another is that sometimes people have direct copies delivered to
their inbox, but copies via the list filtered into a folder. Such
users want both copies.
When a Reply-To header is set to the list address, all three kinds of reply will do the same thing. I generally think this is annoying, but it does have its uses.
Nevertheless, list admins sometimes feel pressured into using this Reply-To technique, even when they don't want to, because of the lack of support for "Reply List" of mail clients.
The trend seems to be to start including a Reply List feature. In Thunderbird, the "Reply All" button turns into a "Reply List" button when a mailing list is detected, but you can still click the edge of button to open a context menu and choose Reply All. Other interfaces, such as Gmail, I believe, have a "Reply to list" link.
IMHO, a really smart client would recognise if a Reply-To header is set to the list address and make Reply List the default, but still allow a Reply (Sender) feature which ignores the Reply-To header. This could save users a bit of time copying and pasting when they want to reply to the sender of a mailing list with Reply-To set.
At the end of the day, every mailing list is different, because every community is different, and different groups will have different uses for these different features. I think it makes sense to offer them all--it is clear enough what they do--and let people simply not use ones they don't need. A number of users, such as me, would regularly use all three.
Best regards,
Ben.
P.S. I would value a constructive discussion of this topic, without name-calling. Assuming, and much less saying, that people who disagree with you are inferior in some way is not going to get anywhere.
On 15.01.2014 12:43, Ben Schmidt wrote:
As the maintainer of a mailing-list manager, and as a user of mailing lists, I thought I would chip in.
I think there are uses for all three scenarios: (1) reply to sender (only), (2) reply to list (only), (3) reply to all (sender, list and any CCs).
I'm not unconditionally opposed to change; far from it. But e-mail as such has gotten along very well (including mailing lists) without this "reply list".
It has no place in a mail client for the average end user.
(2) is useful for replies to the list. It can be particularly handy for continuing a conversation where the OP, who started the thread, was not the sender of the mail you are replying to, or if you are going a little off topic.
The first part of this I don't quite understand.. Replies to people who are not OP occur all the time in mailing list threads; why would you want to break the loop just because you're not replying directly to OP. The OP is not some appointed ruler of the thread.
The second part is clear: the discussion topic has drifted, and basically you want to make something like a new post to the list, but quote parts of the old thread.
However, the average user will just think, "this message is list-related, so reply to list must be the right button since it has 'list' in its name".
People understand the standard duo: "Reply (just to the person)" and "Reply (all)". Even that gets screwed up sometimes; people end up sending what was intended to be a private comment to everyone.
"Reply To List (Only)" requires a bit of mailing list education. At the very least there has to be a warning dialog
If you reply only to the mailing list foo@example.com, your
reply will not reach the sender or some of the addresses
in the Cc: list if they happen not to be subscribers of
the mailing list. Use Reply All if you suspect some of the
parties who should stay included in the discussion are not
subscribers.
[ ] do not show this message again
[Switch to Reply All] [Cancel] [Continue]
Ideally what mail clients should do is provide a single reply command with a "reply assisting wizard", at least in their newbie mode: something which guides the users toward making exactly the right kind of reply, explaining the implications of every choice.
As soon as you have two or more similar reply commands, and a program which just does what it is told, mismatches between intent and action are possible.
At the end of the day, every mailing list is different, because every community is different, and different groups will have different uses for these different features.
Exactly. And so how does the mail *client* know and fit in?
I think it makes sense to offer them all--it is clear enough what they do--and let people simply not use ones they don't need.
That's the rub. How do the users know what they need and don't need?
This is a great approach for engineering tools, programming API's and so on.
Give `em the full orthogonal set of functions, and a reference manual.
It's not necessarily a good recipe for usability though for the computer consuming public.
Good user interfaces (1985 Apple mac, etc) are not usually based on this "dump the functionality on them and let them sort it out".
Well, sometimes they are--e.g. vector graphics or painting program with a big "tool box" of goodies--but there is an Undo command so you can safely explore everything. There is no Undo in e-mail.
I think it can work if the program can provide some very pertinent, yet unobtrusive assistance in all the critical moments in every important use case.
On 2014-01-15 1:54 PM, Benny Pedersen me@junc.eu wrote:
thunderbird need a plugin to make it work, roundcube it just works default
Thunderbird has had a proper 'Reply-To-List' button/feature for a long time now.\
On 2014-01-15 3:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku kaz@kylheku.com wrote:
Reply should reply to the sender: the person on the From: line, period.
If the SENDER wants replies to their post to go to them *only*, they should explicitly set their REPLY-TO.
Otherwise, the vast majority (90+%?) of *discussion* lists should keep the traffic *on the list*. That is what 'Reply-To-List' is for, and you must intentionally use it (I use the keybd shortcut CTRL-SHIFT-L).
Yes, some discussion lists allow posts from non-posters, and as long as the poster specifically requests to be CC'd, I will *try* to remember to do that if I reply... but I also don't care too much about it, because to me it seems a bit lazy and rude for someone to bother an entire list of folks to ask a question, and expect everyone *else* to deal with their laziness by having to treat their posts differently, rather than just subscribing to the list, even if only for the time it takes to get their question answered.
Charles Marcus skrev den 2014-01-16 20:27:
On 2014-01-15 1:54 PM, Benny Pedersen <me[at]junc.eu> wrote:
thunderbird need a plugin to make it work, roundcube it just works default
Thunderbird has had a proper 'Reply-To-List' button/feature for a long time now.\
and RCU maillist now makes it impossible to reply private :(
if i wanted to reply to maillist i know with button to press on, as is now it does not matter :(
and thunderbird nicely add @ into body content for senders that dont have a signature with @
respectfull !
On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 18:58 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Charles Marcus skrev den 2014-01-16 20:27:
On 2014-01-15 1:54 PM, Benny Pedersen <me[at]junc.eu> wrote:
thunderbird need a plugin to make it work, roundcube it just works default
Thunderbird has had a proper 'Reply-To-List' button/feature for a long time now.\
and RCU maillist now makes it impossible to reply private :(
why?
Y O U are on a P U B L I C discussion list, if Y O U have something private to say (not that much you say makes any bloody sense anyway) it is Y O U that is changing the behaviour, so Y O U should be the one to take whatever steps Y O U need so Y O U can contact someone direct, like oh I dunno, hitting forward maybe
On 17.01.2014 16:25, Noel Butler wrote:
On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 18:58 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Charles Marcus skrev den 2014-01-16 20:27:
On 2014-01-15 1:54 PM, Benny Pedersen <me[at]junc.eu> wrote:
thunderbird need a plugin to make it work, roundcube it just works
default
Thunderbird has had a proper 'Reply-To-List' button/feature for a
long
time now.
and RCU maillist now makes it impossible to reply private :(
why?
Y O U are on a P U B L I C discussion list, if Y O U have something private to say (not that much you say makes any bloody sense anyway) it is Y O U that is changing the behaviour, so Y O U should be the one to take whatever steps Y O U need so Y O U can contact someone direct, like oh I dunno, hitting forward maybe
Note that Usenet, which provides a much more solid forum abstraction than the illusion created by mailing lists, supports private replies.
This ability is important in any civilized forum.
One function that it serves is that if it is used appropriately, it reduces noise.
For instance, suppose some noob contacts the list out of the blue and asks a question that is almost a carbon copy of #3 in the list's FAQ.
The appropriate thing is to send a private reply to the noob and direct them to the FAQ, and not waste the list's bandwidth.
If the list is moderated, the moderator might send this private reply (and not admit the useless question to the list at all).
In this very list, I have numerous times answered something privately, when it was basic confusion that comes up again and again (about what RCU is and isn't).
Your vehemence against private replies is bizarre and baffling.
On 2014-01-17 10:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku kaz@kylheku.com wrote:
Your vehemence against private replies is bizarre and baffling.
Surprisingly, I'm in agreement with Noel (I generally don't see his posts unless someone quotes him)...
What you seem to fail to be grasping is, we are saying that on PUBLIC DISCUSSION lists, the DEFAULT behavior should be to reply to the list, as that facilitates the purpose of the list: PUBLIC DISCUSSION.
I didn't see anything in Noels post discouraging replying privately when it is appropriate.
That said, while my own personal preference would be that all lists would NOT munge the Reply-To' headers and all list participants would then use the 'Reply' or 'Reply-To-List' buttons as appropriate, the sad fact is, the large majority of people using discussion lists will simply never 'get it'.
On 18.01.2014 05:58, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2014-01-17 10:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku kaz@kylheku.com wrote:
Your vehemence against private replies is bizarre and baffling.
Surprisingly, I'm in agreement with Noel (I generally don't see his posts unless someone quotes him)...
What you seem to fail to be grasping is, we are saying that on PUBLIC DISCUSSION lists, the DEFAULT behavior should be to reply to the list, as that facilitates the purpose of the list: PUBLIC DISCUSSION.
I'm not failing to grasp anything. The usual behavior should be that, of course.
Yes, some people hit Reply thinking they are carrying on the list conversation and that is a bit of a problem. (I've seen it and it's annoying, indeed.)
They still have the intent of participating in the group discussion, but choose the wrong command that doesn't implement their intent.
Has it occurred to you that maybe some of these people have been conditioned by lists that munge Reply-To, which confirms their wrong belief that Reply is the command for the default action?
It's like disease: it harms lists that don't use it!
-
Arne Berglund -
Ben Schmidt -
Benny Pedersen -
Charles Marcus -
Kaz Kylheku -
Noel Butler