[vote] fix the misconfiguration of the dev@ mailing list

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[vote] fix the misconfiguration of the dev@ mailing list

Eitan Adler
Hi all,

The mailing list [hidden email] appears to always and forcibly
set the header Reply-To: Commons Developers List
<[hidden email]>. I had asked INFRA to remove this remove the
reply-to munging. They asked for documented consensus before making
this change.

This is broken for multiple reasons.

It violates RFC 2822 which requires that reply-to MUST only be used
for when " ... the author of the message suggests that replies be
sent."

While this should be enough, it is useful to explain some of the
reasoning the standard is the way it is:

- It breaks MUAs that have "reply to all" and "reply" (and maybe even
"reply to list"). In doing so, having this setting greatly increases
the chance of privacy violations by people that expect the mailing
lists to act normally. If you're trying to send a private reply using
the normal method to reply, the message will be made public.
- It adds nothing: by means of copy and paste a private reply is still
possible, just annoying, and a workaround for a broken mailing list
- Some mail readers provide 'personal mail' indicators. This only
triggered when you are on the CC or TO lines. The 'feature' breaks
this.
- Some people prefer mail CCed to them as well as the mailing list,
especially if reading a mailing list is lower priority than personal
mail.

As such I'd like to vote that we fix the dev@ mailing list

+1 = the mailing list misconfiguration will be removed
-1 = the mailing list will continue to remain broken

--
Eitan Adler

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [vote] fix the misconfiguration of the dev@ mailing list

Mark Thomas
-1

Changing the reply-to configuration increases the chances of message
threads being moved off-list by accident. I am concerned about the risk
of harm to the community that that represents.

I vote to leave the current list configuration as it. I do not see any
of the issues described. (I'm using Thunderbird.)

On 11/02/2019 08:24, Eitan Adler wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The mailing list [hidden email] appears to always and forcibly
> set the header Reply-To: Commons Developers List
> <[hidden email]>. I had asked INFRA to remove this remove the
> reply-to munging. They asked for documented consensus before making
> this change.
>
> This is broken for multiple reasons.
>
> It violates RFC 2822 which requires that reply-to MUST only be used
> for when " ... the author of the message suggests that replies be
> sent."
>
> While this should be enough, it is useful to explain some of the
> reasoning the standard is the way it is:
>
> - It breaks MUAs that have "reply to all" and "reply" (and maybe even
> "reply to list"). In doing so, having this setting greatly increases
> the chance of privacy violations by people that expect the mailing
> lists to act normally. If you're trying to send a private reply using
> the normal method to reply, the message will be made public.

I don't see this.

Reply - > original poster
Reply List -> list
Reply All -> List and OP

> - It adds nothing: by means of copy and paste a private reply is still
> possible, just annoying, and a workaround for a broken mailing list

No need for this workaround in Thunderbird.

> - Some mail readers provide 'personal mail' indicators. This only
> triggered when you are on the CC or TO lines. The 'feature' breaks
> this.
> - Some people prefer mail CCed to them as well as the mailing list,
> especially if reading a mailing list is lower priority than personal
> mail.

Both the above require that replies are sent to both the list and the
OP. While some people might prefer this, others do not. And we have no
way of telling which list subscribers fall into which camp.

Mail clients usually have other ways to mark threads that are of interest .

Mark


> As such I'd like to vote that we fix the dev@ mailing list
>
> +1 = the mailing list misconfiguration will be removed
> -1 = the mailing list will continue to remain broken
>
> --
> Eitan Adler
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [vote] fix the misconfiguration of the dev@ mailing list

sebb-2-2
I checked a few other ASF lists and they all have Reply-To set either
to the current list or to dev@ for lists such as commits@ and
notifications@

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 08:47, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> -1
>
> Changing the reply-to configuration increases the chances of message
> threads being moved off-list by accident. I am concerned about the risk
> of harm to the community that that represents.
>
> I vote to leave the current list configuration as it. I do not see any
> of the issues described. (I'm using Thunderbird.)
>
> On 11/02/2019 08:24, Eitan Adler wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The mailing list [hidden email] appears to always and forcibly
> > set the header Reply-To: Commons Developers List
> > <[hidden email]>. I had asked INFRA to remove this remove the
> > reply-to munging. They asked for documented consensus before making
> > this change.
> >
> > This is broken for multiple reasons.
> >
> > It violates RFC 2822 which requires that reply-to MUST only be used
> > for when " ... the author of the message suggests that replies be
> > sent."
> >
> > While this should be enough, it is useful to explain some of the
> > reasoning the standard is the way it is:
> >
> > - It breaks MUAs that have "reply to all" and "reply" (and maybe even
> > "reply to list"). In doing so, having this setting greatly increases
> > the chance of privacy violations by people that expect the mailing
> > lists to act normally. If you're trying to send a private reply using
> > the normal method to reply, the message will be made public.
>
> I don't see this.
>
> Reply - > original poster
> Reply List -> list
> Reply All -> List and OP
>
> > - It adds nothing: by means of copy and paste a private reply is still
> > possible, just annoying, and a workaround for a broken mailing list
>
> No need for this workaround in Thunderbird.
>
> > - Some mail readers provide 'personal mail' indicators. This only
> > triggered when you are on the CC or TO lines. The 'feature' breaks
> > this.
> > - Some people prefer mail CCed to them as well as the mailing list,
> > especially if reading a mailing list is lower priority than personal
> > mail.
>
> Both the above require that replies are sent to both the list and the
> OP. While some people might prefer this, others do not. And we have no
> way of telling which list subscribers fall into which camp.
>
> Mail clients usually have other ways to mark threads that are of interest .
>
> Mark
>
>
> > As such I'd like to vote that we fix the dev@ mailing list
> >
> > +1 = the mailing list misconfiguration will be removed
> > -1 = the mailing list will continue to remain broken
> >
> > --
> > Eitan Adler
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [vote] fix the misconfiguration of the dev@ mailing list

Gilles Sadowski-2
In reply to this post by Mark Thomas
Hello.

Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 09:47, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> -1
>
> Changing the reply-to configuration increases the chances of message
> threads being moved off-list by accident. I am concerned about the risk
> of harm to the community that that represents.
>
> I vote to leave the current list configuration as it. I do not see any
> of the issues described. (I'm using Thunderbird.)

Using the Gmail webmail interface, the issues seem present.

>
> On 11/02/2019 08:24, Eitan Adler wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The mailing list [hidden email] appears to always and forcibly
> > set the header Reply-To: Commons Developers List
> > <[hidden email]>. I had asked INFRA to remove this remove the
> > reply-to munging. They asked for documented consensus before making
> > this change.
> >
> > This is broken for multiple reasons.
> >
> > It violates RFC 2822 which requires that reply-to MUST only be used
> > for when " ... the author of the message suggests that replies be
> > sent."
> >
> > While this should be enough, it is useful to explain some of the
> > reasoning the standard is the way it is:
> >
> > - It breaks MUAs that have "reply to all" and "reply" (and maybe even
> > "reply to list"). In doing so, having this setting greatly increases
> > the chance of privacy violations by people that expect the mailing
> > lists to act normally. If you're trying to send a private reply using
> > the normal method to reply, the message will be made public.
>
> I don't see this.
>
> Reply - > original poster

In Gmail -> list

> Reply List -> list

In Gmail, does not appear in the reply options.

> Reply All -> List and OP

In Gmail -> list

> > - It adds nothing: by means of copy and paste a private reply is still
> > possible, just annoying, and a workaround for a broken mailing list
>
> No need for this workaround in Thunderbird.

For sure, some MUA are better than others.  But the question is
whether the list configuration violates the standard or not.

This article:
    http://david.woodhou.se/reply-to-list.html
argues that "reply-to" set to list is always bad.


Gilles

> > - Some mail readers provide 'personal mail' indicators. This only
> > triggered when you are on the CC or TO lines. The 'feature' breaks
> > this.
> > - Some people prefer mail CCed to them as well as the mailing list,
> > especially if reading a mailing list is lower priority than personal
> > mail.
>
> Both the above require that replies are sent to both the list and the
> OP. While some people might prefer this, others do not. And we have no
> way of telling which list subscribers fall into which camp.
>
> Mail clients usually have other ways to mark threads that are of interest .
>
> Mark
>
>
> > As such I'd like to vote that we fix the dev@ mailing list
> >
> > +1 = the mailing list misconfiguration will be removed
> > -1 = the mailing list will continue to remain broken
> >
> > --
> > Eitan Adler
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [vote] fix the misconfiguration of the dev@ mailing list

Gilles Sadowski-2
In reply to this post by sebb-2-2
Hi.

Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 10:02, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> I checked a few other ASF lists and they all have Reply-To set either
> to the current list or to dev@ for lists such as commits@ and
> notifications@

I had a look at that too.
But IMO
 * "dev" and
 * "commits", "notifications", ...
are different cases in that the former relays messages that originated
from real people while the latter comes from a "bot" and it would make
no sense to reply to it.

Gilles

>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 08:47, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > -1
> >
> > Changing the reply-to configuration increases the chances of message
> > threads being moved off-list by accident. I am concerned about the risk
> > of harm to the community that that represents.
> >
> > I vote to leave the current list configuration as it. I do not see any
> > of the issues described. (I'm using Thunderbird.)
> >
> > On 11/02/2019 08:24, Eitan Adler wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > The mailing list [hidden email] appears to always and forcibly
> > > set the header Reply-To: Commons Developers List
> > > <[hidden email]>. I had asked INFRA to remove this remove the
> > > reply-to munging. They asked for documented consensus before making
> > > this change.
> > >
> > > This is broken for multiple reasons.
> > >
> > > It violates RFC 2822 which requires that reply-to MUST only be used
> > > for when " ... the author of the message suggests that replies be
> > > sent."
> > >
> > > While this should be enough, it is useful to explain some of the
> > > reasoning the standard is the way it is:
> > >
> > > - It breaks MUAs that have "reply to all" and "reply" (and maybe even
> > > "reply to list"). In doing so, having this setting greatly increases
> > > the chance of privacy violations by people that expect the mailing
> > > lists to act normally. If you're trying to send a private reply using
> > > the normal method to reply, the message will be made public.
> >
> > I don't see this.
> >
> > Reply - > original poster
> > Reply List -> list
> > Reply All -> List and OP
> >
> > > - It adds nothing: by means of copy and paste a private reply is still
> > > possible, just annoying, and a workaround for a broken mailing list
> >
> > No need for this workaround in Thunderbird.
> >
> > > - Some mail readers provide 'personal mail' indicators. This only
> > > triggered when you are on the CC or TO lines. The 'feature' breaks
> > > this.
> > > - Some people prefer mail CCed to them as well as the mailing list,
> > > especially if reading a mailing list is lower priority than personal
> > > mail.
> >
> > Both the above require that replies are sent to both the list and the
> > OP. While some people might prefer this, others do not. And we have no
> > way of telling which list subscribers fall into which camp.
> >
> > Mail clients usually have other ways to mark threads that are of interest .
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > > As such I'd like to vote that we fix the dev@ mailing list
> > >
> > > +1 = the mailing list misconfiguration will be removed
> > > -1 = the mailing list will continue to remain broken
> > >
> > > --
> > > Eitan Adler
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [vote] fix the misconfiguration of the dev@ mailing list

sebb-2-2
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 09:24, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi.
>
> Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 10:02, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> >
> > I checked a few other ASF lists and they all have Reply-To set either
> > to the current list or to dev@ for lists such as commits@ and
> > notifications@
>
> I had a look at that too.
> But IMO
>  * "dev" and
>  * "commits", "notifications", ...
> are different cases in that the former relays messages that originated
> from real people while the latter comes from a "bot" and it would make
> no sense to reply to it.

Yes. That's deliberate, for the reason you state.
The point is that all the lists have Reply-To set.

> Gilles
>
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 08:47, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > -1
> > >
> > > Changing the reply-to configuration increases the chances of message
> > > threads being moved off-list by accident. I am concerned about the risk
> > > of harm to the community that that represents.
> > >
> > > I vote to leave the current list configuration as it. I do not see any
> > > of the issues described. (I'm using Thunderbird.)
> > >
> > > On 11/02/2019 08:24, Eitan Adler wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > The mailing list [hidden email] appears to always and forcibly
> > > > set the header Reply-To: Commons Developers List
> > > > <[hidden email]>. I had asked INFRA to remove this remove the
> > > > reply-to munging. They asked for documented consensus before making
> > > > this change.
> > > >
> > > > This is broken for multiple reasons.
> > > >
> > > > It violates RFC 2822 which requires that reply-to MUST only be used
> > > > for when " ... the author of the message suggests that replies be
> > > > sent."
> > > >
> > > > While this should be enough, it is useful to explain some of the
> > > > reasoning the standard is the way it is:
> > > >
> > > > - It breaks MUAs that have "reply to all" and "reply" (and maybe even
> > > > "reply to list"). In doing so, having this setting greatly increases
> > > > the chance of privacy violations by people that expect the mailing
> > > > lists to act normally. If you're trying to send a private reply using
> > > > the normal method to reply, the message will be made public.
> > >
> > > I don't see this.
> > >
> > > Reply - > original poster
> > > Reply List -> list
> > > Reply All -> List and OP
> > >
> > > > - It adds nothing: by means of copy and paste a private reply is still
> > > > possible, just annoying, and a workaround for a broken mailing list
> > >
> > > No need for this workaround in Thunderbird.
> > >
> > > > - Some mail readers provide 'personal mail' indicators. This only
> > > > triggered when you are on the CC or TO lines. The 'feature' breaks
> > > > this.
> > > > - Some people prefer mail CCed to them as well as the mailing list,
> > > > especially if reading a mailing list is lower priority than personal
> > > > mail.
> > >
> > > Both the above require that replies are sent to both the list and the
> > > OP. While some people might prefer this, others do not. And we have no
> > > way of telling which list subscribers fall into which camp.
> > >
> > > Mail clients usually have other ways to mark threads that are of interest .
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > >
> > > > As such I'd like to vote that we fix the dev@ mailing list
> > > >
> > > > +1 = the mailing list misconfiguration will be removed
> > > > -1 = the mailing list will continue to remain broken
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Eitan Adler
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [vote] fix the misconfiguration of the dev@ mailing list

Rob Tompkins
In reply to this post by Mark Thomas


> On Feb 11, 2019, at 3:47 AM, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> -1
>
> Changing the reply-to configuration increases the chances of message
> threads being moved off-list by accident. I am concerned about the risk
> of harm to the community that that represents.
>
> I vote to leave the current list configuration as it. I do not see any
> of the issues described. (I'm using Thunderbird.)
>

I’m with Mark here.
-Rob

>> On 11/02/2019 08:24, Eitan Adler wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The mailing list [hidden email] appears to always and forcibly
>> set the header Reply-To: Commons Developers List
>> <[hidden email]>. I had asked INFRA to remove this remove the
>> reply-to munging. They asked for documented consensus before making
>> this change.
>>
>> This is broken for multiple reasons.
>>
>> It violates RFC 2822 which requires that reply-to MUST only be used
>> for when " ... the author of the message suggests that replies be
>> sent."
>>
>> While this should be enough, it is useful to explain some of the
>> reasoning the standard is the way it is:
>>
>> - It breaks MUAs that have "reply to all" and "reply" (and maybe even
>> "reply to list"). In doing so, having this setting greatly increases
>> the chance of privacy violations by people that expect the mailing
>> lists to act normally. If you're trying to send a private reply using
>> the normal method to reply, the message will be made public.
>
> I don't see this.
>
> Reply - > original poster
> Reply List -> list
> Reply All -> List and OP
>
>> - It adds nothing: by means of copy and paste a private reply is still
>> possible, just annoying, and a workaround for a broken mailing list
>
> No need for this workaround in Thunderbird.
>
>> - Some mail readers provide 'personal mail' indicators. This only
>> triggered when you are on the CC or TO lines. The 'feature' breaks
>> this.
>> - Some people prefer mail CCed to them as well as the mailing list,
>> especially if reading a mailing list is lower priority than personal
>> mail.
>
> Both the above require that replies are sent to both the list and the
> OP. While some people might prefer this, others do not. And we have no
> way of telling which list subscribers fall into which camp.
>
> Mail clients usually have other ways to mark threads that are of interest .
>
> Mark
>
>
>> As such I'd like to vote that we fix the dev@ mailing list
>>
>> +1 = the mailing list misconfiguration will be removed
>> -1 = the mailing list will continue to remain broken
>>
>> --
>> Eitan Adler
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [vote] fix the misconfiguration of the dev@ mailing list

Gilles Sadowski-2
In reply to this post by sebb-2-2
Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 11:16, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 09:24, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi.
> >
> > Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 10:02, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > >
> > > I checked a few other ASF lists and they all have Reply-To set either
> > > to the current list or to dev@ for lists such as commits@ and
> > > notifications@
> >
> > I had a look at that too.
> > But IMO
> >  * "dev" and
> >  * "commits", "notifications", ...
> > are different cases in that the former relays messages that originated
> > from real people while the latter comes from a "bot" and it would make
> > no sense to reply to it.
>
> Yes. That's deliberate, for the reason you state.
> The point is that all the lists have Reply-To set.

Sorry, I don't follow the reasoning; why should the setting be
the same for two different cases?

> > Gilles
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 08:47, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -1
> > > >
> > > > Changing the reply-to configuration increases the chances of message
> > > > threads being moved off-list by accident. I am concerned about the risk
> > > > of harm to the community that that represents.
> > > >
> > > > I vote to leave the current list configuration as it. I do not see any
> > > > of the issues described. (I'm using Thunderbird.)
> > > >
> > > > On 11/02/2019 08:24, Eitan Adler wrote:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > The mailing list [hidden email] appears to always and forcibly
> > > > > set the header Reply-To: Commons Developers List
> > > > > <[hidden email]>. I had asked INFRA to remove this remove the
> > > > > reply-to munging. They asked for documented consensus before making
> > > > > this change.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is broken for multiple reasons.
> > > > >
> > > > > It violates RFC 2822 which requires that reply-to MUST only be used
> > > > > for when " ... the author of the message suggests that replies be
> > > > > sent."
> > > > >
> > > > > While this should be enough, it is useful to explain some of the
> > > > > reasoning the standard is the way it is:
> > > > >
> > > > > - It breaks MUAs that have "reply to all" and "reply" (and maybe even
> > > > > "reply to list"). In doing so, having this setting greatly increases
> > > > > the chance of privacy violations by people that expect the mailing
> > > > > lists to act normally. If you're trying to send a private reply using
> > > > > the normal method to reply, the message will be made public.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see this.
> > > >
> > > > Reply - > original poster
> > > > Reply List -> list
> > > > Reply All -> List and OP
> > > >
> > > > > - It adds nothing: by means of copy and paste a private reply is still
> > > > > possible, just annoying, and a workaround for a broken mailing list
> > > >
> > > > No need for this workaround in Thunderbird.
> > > >
> > > > > - Some mail readers provide 'personal mail' indicators. This only
> > > > > triggered when you are on the CC or TO lines. The 'feature' breaks
> > > > > this.
> > > > > - Some people prefer mail CCed to them as well as the mailing list,
> > > > > especially if reading a mailing list is lower priority than personal
> > > > > mail.
> > > >
> > > > Both the above require that replies are sent to both the list and the
> > > > OP. While some people might prefer this, others do not. And we have no
> > > > way of telling which list subscribers fall into which camp.
> > > >
> > > > Mail clients usually have other ways to mark threads that are of interest .
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > As such I'd like to vote that we fix the dev@ mailing list
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 = the mailing list misconfiguration will be removed
> > > > > -1 = the mailing list will continue to remain broken
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Eitan Adler
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Reply-To settings (was: [vote] fix the misconfiguration of the dev@ mailing list)

sebb-2-2
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 12:33, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 11:16, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 09:24, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 10:02, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > I checked a few other ASF lists and they all have Reply-To set either
> > > > to the current list or to dev@ for lists such as commits@ and
> > > > notifications@
> > >
> > > I had a look at that too.
> > > But IMO
> > >  * "dev" and
> > >  * "commits", "notifications", ...
> > > are different cases in that the former relays messages that originated
> > > from real people while the latter comes from a "bot" and it would make
> > > no sense to reply to it.
> >
> > Yes. That's deliberate, for the reason you state.
> > The point is that all the lists have Reply-To set.
>
> Sorry, I don't follow the reasoning; why should the setting be
> the same for two different cases?

Huh?

The setting is not the same.

They all have Reply-To set, however as I wrote, the actual setting is
not the same for all the cases.

> > > Gilles
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 08:47, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > -1
> > > > >
> > > > > Changing the reply-to configuration increases the chances of message
> > > > > threads being moved off-list by accident. I am concerned about the risk
> > > > > of harm to the community that that represents.
> > > > >
> > > > > I vote to leave the current list configuration as it. I do not see any
> > > > > of the issues described. (I'm using Thunderbird.)
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/02/2019 08:24, Eitan Adler wrote:
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The mailing list [hidden email] appears to always and forcibly
> > > > > > set the header Reply-To: Commons Developers List
> > > > > > <[hidden email]>. I had asked INFRA to remove this remove the
> > > > > > reply-to munging. They asked for documented consensus before making
> > > > > > this change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is broken for multiple reasons.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It violates RFC 2822 which requires that reply-to MUST only be used
> > > > > > for when " ... the author of the message suggests that replies be
> > > > > > sent."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While this should be enough, it is useful to explain some of the
> > > > > > reasoning the standard is the way it is:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - It breaks MUAs that have "reply to all" and "reply" (and maybe even
> > > > > > "reply to list"). In doing so, having this setting greatly increases
> > > > > > the chance of privacy violations by people that expect the mailing
> > > > > > lists to act normally. If you're trying to send a private reply using
> > > > > > the normal method to reply, the message will be made public.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reply - > original poster
> > > > > Reply List -> list
> > > > > Reply All -> List and OP
> > > > >
> > > > > > - It adds nothing: by means of copy and paste a private reply is still
> > > > > > possible, just annoying, and a workaround for a broken mailing list
> > > > >
> > > > > No need for this workaround in Thunderbird.
> > > > >
> > > > > > - Some mail readers provide 'personal mail' indicators. This only
> > > > > > triggered when you are on the CC or TO lines. The 'feature' breaks
> > > > > > this.
> > > > > > - Some people prefer mail CCed to them as well as the mailing list,
> > > > > > especially if reading a mailing list is lower priority than personal
> > > > > > mail.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both the above require that replies are sent to both the list and the
> > > > > OP. While some people might prefer this, others do not. And we have no
> > > > > way of telling which list subscribers fall into which camp.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mail clients usually have other ways to mark threads that are of interest .
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > As such I'd like to vote that we fix the dev@ mailing list
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1 = the mailing list misconfiguration will be removed
> > > > > > -1 = the mailing list will continue to remain broken
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Eitan Adler
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply-To settings (was: [vote] fix the misconfiguration of the dev@ mailing list)

Gilles Sadowski-2
Hi.

Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 16:08, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 12:33, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 11:16, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > >
> > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 09:24, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 10:02, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > I checked a few other ASF lists and they all have Reply-To set either
> > > > > to the current list or to dev@ for lists such as commits@ and
> > > > > notifications@
> > > >
> > > > I had a look at that too.
> > > > But IMO
> > > >  * "dev" and
> > > >  * "commits", "notifications", ...
> > > > are different cases in that the former relays messages that originated
> > > > from real people while the latter comes from a "bot" and it would make
> > > > no sense to reply to it.
> > >
> > > Yes. That's deliberate, for the reason you state.
> > > The point is that all the lists have Reply-To set.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't follow the reasoning; why should the setting be
> > the same for two different cases?
>
> Huh?
>
> The setting is not the same.
>
> They all have Reply-To set, however as I wrote, the actual setting is
> not the same for all the cases.

Sorry I didn't express myself clearly: While it makes perfect sense
to redirect to "dev" a reply to a mail that comes from e.g. "commits",
it is questionable to do the same for a mail that was sent by a real
person. [That is, unless the policy is to make it difficult to make a
private reply to someone who posted to the list.  IMHO, it boils down
to decide which is more harmful: A message intended for the list that
is sent privately, or one intended to be private that is sent to a public
list?]

Gilles

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [vote] fix the misconfiguration of the dev@ mailing list

Eitan Adler
In reply to this post by Mark Thomas
(please make sure to add me to CC directly as the mailing is presently broken)
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 00:47, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> -1
>
> Changing the reply-to configuration increases the chances of message
> threads being moved off-list by accident. I am concerned about the risk
> of harm to the community that that represents.

Can you present any evidence that this would be actively harmful to
the community to point that we should violate internet standards?
I've seen nothing similar happen in any of other open source
communities I'm a part of.

--
Eitan Adler

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply-To settings (was: [vote] fix the misconfiguration of the dev@ mailing list)

Eitan Adler
In reply to this post by sebb-2-2
(please make sure to add me to the CC as the mailing list is presently broken)
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 07:08, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 12:33, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 11:16, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > >
> > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 09:24, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 10:02, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > I checked a few other ASF lists and they all have Reply-To set either
> > > > > to the current list or to dev@ for lists such as commits@ and
> > > > > notifications@
> > > >
> > > > I had a look at that too.
> > > > But IMO
> > > >  * "dev" and
> > > >  * "commits", "notifications", ...
> > > > are different cases in that the former relays messages that originated
> > > > from real people while the latter comes from a "bot" and it would make
> > > > no sense to reply to it.
> > >
> > > Yes. That's deliberate, for the reason you state.
> > > The point is that all the lists have Reply-To set.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't follow the reasoning; why should the setting be
> > the same for two different cases?
>
> Huh?
>
> The setting is not the same.
>
> They all have Reply-To set, however as I wrote, the actual setting is
> not the same for all the cases.

There are two different things:
- having reply-to set
- having reply-to munged

The former happens by the user. The latter is changed by the mailing
list.  The right thing to do for commits@ is to have the *bot itself*
set "reply-to" to the list and for the list to do nothing.


On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 13:19, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> A message intended for the list that
> is sent privately, or one intended to be private that is sent to a public
> list?]

Not exactly. In the broken case, public messages also run the risk of
getting ignored. This is because replies don't go to the user and thus
look like ordinary messages. As an example: I get an average of 200
messages per day from public mailing lists. Unless a message is marked
as "to me" or "I participated" it is much more likely to be missed.

The tradeoffs are:

Non-broken Pros:
- Doesn't break the expectation of "reply" vs "reply all"
- Private messages are not likely to go a public mailing list
- No need to manually add people to CC
- Messages are less likely to be lost to the author
- Following internet standards
- Similar to other open source projects

Cons:
- Its possible to accidentally sent a private reply which will need to
be redirected to the mailing list.


Broken Pros:
- It takes slightly more work to send a private reply which will need
to be redirected to the mailing list.



--
Eitan Adler

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [vote] fix the misconfiguration of the dev@ mailing list

sebb-2-2
In reply to this post by Eitan Adler
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 16:26, Eitan Adler <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> (please make sure to add me to CC directly as the mailing is presently broken)
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 00:47, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > -1
> >
> > Changing the reply-to configuration increases the chances of message
> > threads being moved off-list by accident. I am concerned about the risk
> > of harm to the community that that represents.
>
> Can you present any evidence that this would be actively harmful to
> the community to point that we should violate internet standards?
> I've seen nothing similar happen in any of other open source
> communities I'm a part of.

From my reading of RFC 2822, it's perfectly legitimate to provide a
Reply-To address to override the From: address.
In any case, we definitely need the Reply-To header for lists such as
commits, issues, notifications.

If we were to change only dev@ etc, then the behaviour on those lists
would be different - that seems confusing to me.

> --
> Eitan Adler
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [vote] fix the misconfiguration of the dev@ mailing list

Mark Thomas
In reply to this post by Eitan Adler
On 12/02/2019 16:26, Eitan Adler wrote:

> (please make sure to add me to CC directly as the mailing is presently broken)
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 00:47, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> -1
>>
>> Changing the reply-to configuration increases the chances of message
>> threads being moved off-list by accident. I am concerned about the risk
>> of harm to the community that that represents.
>
> Can you present any evidence that this would be actively harmful to
> the community to point that we should violate internet standards?
> I've seen nothing similar happen in any of other open source
> communities I'm a part of.

I've seen it happen in multiple communities where conversations move
off-list accidentally and one of the participants notices and fixes it.
What I can't put a figure on is how many times it isn't noticed because
the thread doesn't re-appear on list.

It didn't take much searching to find others with a similar experience:
http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html

In terms of RFC 2822, I read the spec differently and consider qmail's
changing of the reply-to header consistent with both the intent of the
RFC and the desire of the ASF.

I am aware of the long running debates on this point.
(here is the opposite PoV to the link above:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html)

Personally, I do not want two copies of every reply to every message I
post to this or any other ASF list. It happens enough already when folks
hit reply all. Having it happen every time would be a significant nuisance.

Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply-To settings (was: [vote] fix the misconfiguration of the dev@ mailing list)

Gilles Sadowski-2
In reply to this post by Eitan Adler
Hi.

Le mar. 12 févr. 2019 à 17:49, Eitan Adler <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> (please make sure to add me to the CC as the mailing list is presently broken)

I confirm that with either "Reply" or "Reply all", the Gmail web interface
will *not* add your address to the CC. :-(

> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 07:08, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 12:33, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 11:16, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 09:24, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi.
> > > > >
> > > > > Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 10:02, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I checked a few other ASF lists and they all have Reply-To set either
> > > > > > to the current list or to dev@ for lists such as commits@ and
> > > > > > notifications@
> > > > >
> > > > > I had a look at that too.
> > > > > But IMO
> > > > >  * "dev" and
> > > > >  * "commits", "notifications", ...
> > > > > are different cases in that the former relays messages that originated
> > > > > from real people while the latter comes from a "bot" and it would make
> > > > > no sense to reply to it.
> > > >
> > > > Yes. That's deliberate, for the reason you state.
> > > > The point is that all the lists have Reply-To set.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't follow the reasoning; why should the setting be
> > > the same for two different cases?
> >
> > Huh?
> >
> > The setting is not the same.
> >
> > They all have Reply-To set, however as I wrote, the actual setting is
> > not the same for all the cases.
>
> There are two different things:
> - having reply-to set
> - having reply-to munged
>
> The former happens by the user. The latter is changed by the mailing
> list.  The right thing to do for commits@ is to have the *bot itself*
> set "reply-to" to the list and for the list to do nothing.
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 13:19, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > A message intended for the list that
> > is sent privately, or one intended to be private that is sent to a public
> > list?]
>
> Not exactly. In the broken case, public messages also run the risk of
> getting ignored. This is because replies don't go to the user and thus
> look like ordinary messages. As an example: I get an average of 200
> messages per day from public mailing lists. Unless a message is marked
> as "to me" or "I participated" it is much more likely to be missed.
>
> The tradeoffs are:
>
> Non-broken Pros:
> - Doesn't break the expectation of "reply" vs "reply all"
> - Private messages are not likely to go a public mailing list
> - No need to manually add people to CC
> - Messages are less likely to be lost to the author
> - Following internet standards

IMHO, that should be the primary reference...

> - Similar to other open source projects

And this too.

Gilles

> Cons:
> - Its possible to accidentally sent a private reply which will need to
> be redirected to the mailing list.
>
>
> Broken Pros:
> - It takes slightly more work to send a private reply which will need
> to be redirected to the mailing list.
>
>
>
> --
> Eitan Adler
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]