[petsc-users] Mailing list reply-to munging (was Any changes in ML usage between 3.1-p8 -> 3.3-p6?)

[Jed Brown]

Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> writes:

> If from is a problem [and messesup anyones mailboxes] - I can change
> that. I felt it was best to deal with it as petsc-maint completely.

This will cause the problem I mentioned because Reply-to is not strictly
respected either.

>> Several of us sending email as petsc-maint mixes up a lot of address
>> books and Gmail will not allow me to send mail that way because Matt
>> already claimed it and Gmail won't let two users send via the same
>> address. 
>
> No such problem from pine [even though most of you think its an
> antique tool for current times]

The problem is server-side.  I use Notmuch for most list mail (excluding
messages sent from my phone) so I can write whatever headers I want, but
smtp.gmail.com insists on only sending mail from verified addresses.
This is to limit outgoing spam and spoofed message headers.  The logic
they have implemented only allows one gmail account to claim a
particular outgoing address.

> Any smtp server should be fine. [but I guess if one doesn't work - all
> won't work]. I usually tunnel imap/smtp over ssh [eventhough is not
> required for smtp]. But you do go to places with blocked ssh - so that
> doesn't help.

If I send it via a private host, it's hard to avoid being (occasionally)
blocked as spam, especially when the server does not match the email
address.  Sending via Argonne's server fixes that problem, but then I
have to be able to access their server to send email.

But this is drifting off-topic.  The question is whether it's better to
munge Reply-to for petsc-users and petsc-dev, which boils down to:

Is it feasible to adopt mailing list etiquette of using "reply-all" or
must we stick with the current mode of munging Reply-to?

The former has many benefits, including making more email discussion
searchable.