[Mailman-Developers] here we go again... (are these headers really right?)

[Barry A. Warsaw]

>>>>> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com> writes:

    >> Here's the problem. From points to the author. To points to
    >> me. In this case, they're both the same, but...
    >> Translation: A post which was BCC'ed to a list.

    CVR> Except that's not true.

Nor intended.  When personalizing, I intended that the To field gets
the address of the individual, but I didn't mean to erase all traces
of the list or make it impossible to reply to the list.

So our options are these:

1. Stick the list posting address back in the To header and probably
   not include the recipient's address in a mail header.

2. Leave the recip's address in To, but add a CC back to the list

3. Munge Reply-To so that the list's address gets in there somehow

Did you realize you can already do #3?  Just set reply_goes_to_list to
point to "This List".  I don't like #1 because I want a friendlier To
header for personalized messages.  That's not a strong reason, so I
could be persuaded.

So I'm inclined to add #2, but only if reply_goes_to_list isn't "This
List", since I don't think you need the list address in there twice.

    CVR> god, can we go back and shoot the guys who mis-designed
    CVR> reply-to? List-post: isn't quite right here (or widely
    CVR> supported yet), reply-to doesn't do the "right" thing,
    CVR> either.

Damn, Guido took the keys to his time machine, but even if he hadn't
we'd still probably only have 20-50% buyin my mua's.

    CVR> I guess another question would be this -- should the list
    CVR> regularlize how headers are written to set it up so reply
    CVR> goes back to the author and reply-all to the list? isn't that
    CVR> (barring a coerced reply to) how most users are expecting
    CVR> things now?

How's that different than what we do now (modulo one of the fixes
above)?

-Barry