Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 22:45:03 +0200 (GMT+0200)
From: Alan Barrett <barrett@iafrica.com>
To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue
In-Reply-To: <199508251919.PAA13062@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.91.950825220433.482B-100000@daisy.ee.und.ac.za>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I agree with the points on which I do not comment below.

> [ ] reply-to MAY be added by a mailing list to encourage readers to
>     reply to the list and/or the orignal author.  

I don't like mailing lists that do that, but I think that they are
allowed to do so (assuming that they have the original sender's
permission), modulo concerns that munging the "reply-to" creates a new
message that really should have a new "message-id".

> I don't yet see concensus on:
> 
> [ ] whether or not lists should be discouraged from munging reply-to

On lists that point "reply-to" to the list, users often accidentally
send personal replies to the list.  Such replies are often off-topic for
the list, which tends to annoy most of the recipients the list.  Such
replies sometimes reveal information that the sender did not wish to
publish, which may lead to embarrassment or more serious consequences.

On lists that do not point "reply-to" to the list, users often send
replies "to" the author of the previous message, "cc" the mailing list
itself, and also "cc" an ever-lengthening list of authors of earlier
messages in the thread.  Authors of earlier messages then tend to get
two copies of each subsequent message (one because they appeared in the
"cc" lisst, and another because the mailing list appeared in the "cc"
list, and they subscribe to the maliing list).  This tends to annoy the
recipients of the duplicate messages.

Sufficient care on the part of users who reply to mailing list messages
would of course avoid both the above types of problems.  But in the
absence of sufficient care, I prefer to encounter the type of problem
that arises when "reply-to" is not pointed to the list.

> [ ] whether reply-to is intended to allow the original author
>     of a message to state his preference as to where replies
>     to HIM should be sent (note contrast from above)

I think that "reply-to" is intended to allow the original author to
suggest where ordinary replies should be directed; when mailing lists
are involved, ordinary replies are not the same as personal replies.

--apb (Alan Barrett)