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

Satish Balay balay at mcs.anl.gov
Wed Apr 17 17:51:40 CDT 2013

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013, Jed Brown wrote:

> 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.

This benefit is a bit dubious - as you'll get some migration of
petsc-maint traffic to petsc-users - but then you loose all the
'reply-to-individual' emails from the archives [yeah - reply-to-reply
emails with cc:list added get archived - perhaps with broken threads].

For myself - I can fixup my client side config for mailing lists to be
similar to petsc-maint.

So this change is up to you and Barry - who deal with these personal
e-mails [which I guess you are already used to - and are ok with]

And then there is spam - which you say can be dealt with filters. Is
this client side or server side?

Side note: if its client side - then I would expect users could be
doing the same for current mode - and not have to do the 'subscribe'
but set config to 'not recieve e-mails' stuff.


More information about the petsc-users mailing list