[Mailman-developers] Bug: includes Reply-To in administrative messages

[Barry A. Warsaw]

>>>>> "KM" == Ken Manheimer <klm@cnri.reston.va.us> writes:

    KM> As someone suggested (in a subsequent note, i think - i'm
    KM> catching up on ones i've previously scanned, here), i mention
    KM> in the short description that "poster" is *strongly*
    KM> recommended, and included a bit more explanation and the URL
    KM> barry came up with in the long description.

The biggest problem that I have with Reply-to munging is that I use
Reply-to to control which of many inboxes I want replies to show up
at.  I think this is a valid for this header by end-users.  Other
people use it because their mail s/w is broken beyond their repair.
I've had people who just cannot convince their sysadmins to fix their
mailers but still want people to be able to reply to them.  So they
add a Reply-to they know to be valid.  If Mailman munges Reply-to it's
possible that those folks will just lose their messages.  So at the
very least, if optional Reply-to is enabled, Mailman shouldn't add or
change a Reply-to if the original message had this header.

    KM> (And while i'm at it, someone might enjoy seeing the
    KM> refinement of the long description presentation i made last
    KM> week - the gui presentation of the current setting is used,
    KM> instead of the data values.  See
    KM> http://www.python.org/mailman/admin/postal and click on one of
    KM> the 'details' for an example...)

Not bad!

    KM> This would not be hard!  Also would not be high priority.  And
    KM> i have to say, when streaming through my inbox, i often use
    KM> the fact that i got a message twice as the cue that i'm among
    KM> the direct recipients (something i noticed a lot today with
    KM> mailman-developer's mail:).  I'm not sure i'd want to be
    KM> without this, despite the inbox clutter...

It might be a pain (or slow) but a per-user option to control this
would be the way to go.

-Barry